Does "put the rabid dog down already!" apply? Of course, in Texas, where Danny boy's ass first caught air, he'd just be left on the door stop with a nice jalepeno dip shoved down his throat.

Good idea and done. This might be a way to drive home the point that the traditional media has a new babysitter, one that won't be ignored.

Dan is just the face of CBS, and probably had nothing to do with creating the story. Some producer did that. The REAL culprit is Don Hewitt, the creator of 60 Minutes, AND the fucker who produced the Nixon Kennedy debates in 1960. These fucks have been in the tank for the D's since they first discovered that mass media broadcasting could influence public opinion. It's time to fisk 60 Minutes' 35 years of gossipy bullshit.

Oops, sorry I all ready fired off 3 different scathing memos before I read your suggestion about being nice. I did however suggest that their name CBS News should be changed to reflect their content - BS News.

what do the MSM like better than a political scandal, a scandal involing one of their compeitiors.

I have a feeling that Glenn is right, Karl rove is behind this one.

cube

Lets hit them where it hurts. If rather is not removed I have warned CBS that I will oppose their stations licesne renewal by the FCC. No one ever goes to those hearings, so if I can get about 10 people to write letters and show up at the next hearing, it may delay their renewal enough to put them off the air for a while.

This website contains the instructions (scroll down a good bit) for petitioning the FCC.

http://www.fcc.gov/mb/video/renewal.html

Be nice? Rather not.

Make Flopsy (Kerry) answer for this.

Good idea. Here's what I posted as a suggestion:

I think you need to have Dan Rather resign from CBS news.

Everyone is biased and allowed their opinions.
But when a person of his position (objective news person?) flagrantly USES his employer (CBS) to epouse his or her personal beliefs through slanted or even worse, FABRICATED 'News' stories, they ARE NO LONGER TRUSTWORTHY and have shamed themselves and their employer with their DECEIT (OF BEING 'UNBIASED').

My father watched CBS news when he was alive and I, as of last night, USED to watch CBS evening news too.

He in now rolling over in his grave and I am now getting my news from elsewhere unless Rather either apologizes for his smear or is fired.

Dan's ego won't allow the apology and CBS doesn't have the balls to fire him (why?).
So, I will NEVER WATCH CBS NEWS AGAIN or consume any media that ANYTHING to do wtih CBS.

David Acree

Surprised no one added this yet:

There's no BS like CBS

Done.

There is yet one other person CBS needs to relieve of his duties: Andrew Heyward, who has been president of CBS News for ten years. My note said Heyward's second to last act should be to fire Rather. Of course, his last should be to resign.

You morons. Nothing is conclusive other than your wishes. " He didn't usually make copioue notes" this is evidence??

I don't know the answer yet, but soon we may.

Here's mine.

I am writing to add my voice to those who are complaining about the memos from the 60 Minutes report.
Shame on 60 Minutes and shame on CBS for allowing it. They are not even convincing forgeries.
Dan Rather has done his best to hurt your credibility in his obvious, partisan attempt at discrediting President Bush. This is only the latest and most blatant in a long sting of such attempts.
I can't believe that you are allowing your credibility to be destroyed in this manner. And in what appears to be a losing cause. Why are you attacking the Swift Boat Vets instead of researching their claims? Why are you promoting an obviously forged document without researching it?
I think I know the reason. It's really too bad. I used to trust CBS. Ahhh, the folly of youth.

I'm from Massachusetts and have been subjected to that idiot, Flopsy(Kerry) my whole life. Let him squirm over this.

Main Entry: flip-flop
Pronunciation: 'flip-"fläp
Function: noun
1 : the sound or motion of something flapping loosely
2 a : a backward handspring b : a sudden reversal (as of direction or point of view)
3 : a usually electronic device or a circuit (as in a computer) capable of assuming either of two stable states
4 : a rubber sandal loosely fastened to the foot by a thong
- flip-flop intransitive verb

Mike, do me a favor. Go to a computer. There should be one at the public library near the freeway overpass under which you sleep. Click on Microsoft Word. Type the text of one of the letters in verbatim. Then compare what you typed to the "original" memo put out by CBS. Then come back here and apologize for calling us morons.

See B.S. Dan Blather. Made for each other.

my dearest annika,

where does one find a computer? Down here on the river bank nobody seems to know what they are. One fellow thinks he remembers something about a word program on his son's computer and the fact that his sons computer had over three hundred type faces on it and the screen had something called margin settings and other do dads that made the letter look however you wanted, but the drink got to him and even the liberal friends he had threw him out, so he maybe not remembering too clearly.

Could you be more specific? And explain the rules of evidence ot me as opposed to the wishes of the faithful?

I'm so tired of all of this.

And now they're coming after another GW:

http://www.rowboatvets.com/intro.htm

Will it all never end? ;-)

Tried several times unsuccessfully to "contact" them to post a comment--or email--on CBS News, and tried a variety of approaches, not just the Contact Us, which never worked. Do you think they've shut it down?

Another suggestion: People should write CBS per Annika's instructions above, but add that unless Rather goes, the consuming public will contact all ADVERTISERS on CBS "news" shows to recommend that they disassociate themselves from this muck or face a boycott on their products.

Kelsey, i just tried it again, and it worked. Could be a problem with the computer settings on your end.

Mike:
You are the moron if you believe the attack against the current adminstration by Dan Rather hasn't gotten personal.

I also called CBS - the number to call is 212-975-4114. I respectfully requested that they make public a review of the memo by official document experts - at least 3 - I suggest being REALLY nice but firm - I suggested that in order to maintain their reputation - they need to do this

Casca, you couldn't be more wrong.

If you've read anything at all about CBS news, the one thing you'd know is that Rather IS the editor across the board. He runs CBS news with an iron fist. And yes, he runs CBS news... he's not just the face man.

Goog ole dave-

So what? the Bushies attack everything that moves in a very personal way ( just ask John McCain, Max Cleveland, Richard Clarke, etc.), so it is not surprising that a lot of people are pissed off. It is very personal stuff. Ask the 15000 dead iraqi's or the relatives of the 1000 dead Americans how personal it is.

THe man is running this country down the fucking drain and even "OBJECTIVE" news journalists are frightened and feel the compelling need to be rid of this dangerous, ignorant dolt. It is a very serious moment in American history. If I thought he could even read the constitution I would be even more afraid.

The RW bends the rules and lies at every turn, too fucking bad that this guy is coming at you. Boo fucking hoo!! You've got Fox, an unabashedly RW mouthpiece, but you don't scream and squeel like a stuck piglet about that, do you?

So, shut up, run on your sterling record of debt production, job loss, God, partial birth abortion, tax brakes for the wealthy, snowmobiles in national parks, mercury polution and criminal wars and if this stuff is sad old news, which you keep saying his ANG record is, you have nothing to worry about. But as Will S. said "me thinks the lady doth protest too much"

Mike likes to french kiss Michael Moron.

Here is how this whole thing is going to play out: CBS will claim that their "Sources" and their forensic investigators stand by their claim that the documents are authentic(all the while keeping their name from the public). Other News organizations and the blogsphere will parade their experts showing that they are forgeries. We now have a stalemate and it is up to the public to decide which experts to believe, kind of like how a Jury decides whether to believe the plaintiff's expert or the defense's experts in a liability case. The problem is, the issue will soon become muddled with so many opinions that public will not care and a resolution will never come about. I did not expect a CBS admission, even if they are fake, because they loose more from that admission then if they fight it and confuse the public so that it will go away. The ONLY way this thing will be resolved is by a Criminal investigation.

I reworded some, and sent the following. It did make me feel good.................NPR is still reporting the reports as fact.

"
I have been following the CBS News coverage of the Killian memos with interest.

Now that it is clear that most if not all of the memos are forgeries, I cannot see any reason for Dan Rather to remain employed as anchorman of the CBS Evening News, or for those who allowed these lies to remain.

Every day that that these people remain with CBS News brings further lost credibility to your ONCE great news organization. Please forward this message to the appropriate person, as my request that Mr. Rather and his cronies resign as soon as possible.

Good reporting does NOT include lies, but substantiated truths, of which CBS seems no longer capable of doing. "

Lawguy, what you say might be true in the old days, except for this:

Anyone who has ever used Microsoft Windows can instantly and easily recognize that the document was forged on a computer. The fact that the document is easily available on the web for all to examine should tip public opinion.

In the old days, the media would have just controlled access to the documents and hid behind the controversy, like you're saying. Now they can't hide. And the memo's are so obviously fake, you don't even need to be an expert to have an opinion. Just looking at the signatures is enough.

Mike,

I know this is going to be difficult, but stop thinking of this in terms of kerry v. bush. Think of it in terms of the mainstream media being not nearly as reliable as we had once believed. Think of it in temrs of a new form of media beginning to supplant the old form.
Then look at the facts presented by both sides. If you disagree with one side or the other simply provide your reasons for the disagreement.

The partrisan thing... I'm no Bush fan by a long shot. Neither am I a Kerry supporter. The thing syou pointed to as examples of why Bush is bad - let's just say you misundertsand the issues. Presidents aren't supposed to create jobs - the government isn't supposed to interefere with the economy any more than it has to, if you want to bitch about the national debt then let's revisit the source of most of our econmic woes - that socilaist bastard FDR. By the time we work our way to clinton or bush they'll seem like saints. & again the pres doesn't answer for the debt - that's congress.

As for tax breaks for the wealthy - put down Robin Hood, okay? stealing from the rich to give to the poor is a distortion of what he did. He stole form the rich who stole from the poor & returned said money to said poor. Think of it more like Batman & less like Marx.

as for snowmobiles in national parks - humanoid please! I won't bring up that cars in national parks generate more of that nasty pollution that has the greens so freaked out. I'll just ask who the hell are you or anyone else to tell me I cannot use a vehicle to traverse public land?

The problems I have with Bush are many - & the one thing I agree with you on is that the ability to read, comprehend & act upon the Constitution is a very scarce talent in the white house. & in Vongress. & in the judiciary. But this isn't Bush-specific.

what you're doing it hitting all the soclialist talking points as if they were fact - what relevance do they have to the issue of documents being forged or not?

Objectively look at the evidence & if you disagree explain why. We're all reasonable people round here & will be happy to discuss things. Using the generalized insults (i.e. morons) does little to convince anyone of anything other than you're intelectual skills probably aren't capable of handling an adult conversation.

Remember - you (as am I) are a guest on Miss Annika's site. Be civil, as you won't convince anyone of your point by being rude. Besides, I'm probably not the only redneck round here & you don't want to play the dozens with us. Trust me.

mike:

wah, wah, wah.

as far as attacking goes, i'd like to know when any RW attack in this campaign was a COMPLETE FABRICATION. since you are so f------ smart and seem to know everything, maybe you could enlighten me.

if you think anything would be different or better under kerry you are smoking the same s--- as he is...the reason you
spineless, immoral LW f---s don't like GWB is because you are afraid that he might actually lead this country out of the self-serving, if-it- feels-perverse-do-it morass that we are sliding into. your soul-less kind doesn't want that.

as one of your spokepersons Sam Donaldson said on Hannity and Colmes on Wednesday, "The people of this country don't want a LEADER who is going to impose a sense of morality upon them. That's what they are AFRAID of."

Seems you are too. i actually feel sorry for you and your pathetic kind.

.....guys like Mike still like to french kiss Michael Moron (Foolishhype 911)

Publicola: good stuff, there are more of us than them - it's just they are noiser.

Paul: true story.

I live in Massachusetts, it's INFESTED and OVERRUN by liberals. Flopsy and Uncle Ted are adored here. I HOPE AND PRAY that Flopsy loses on 11/02!!

Publicola,

Yes, there is at times great virtue in civility. And other times not. When I see the picture in the paper this morning of a Bush supporter yanking the hair of a heckler at the Christmas ornament factory I get impulses that suggest civility is foolish and bomb throwing may be a more appropriate action.

As for your historical prospective on the roll of gov. we have very different points of view. Your park land as you call it is not yours, my friend. It is an asset of our government that gov. extends to you as a privilege of citizenship (yes, tourists of any and all nationalities may visit but you know what I mean). Just as a helmet law, or a seatbelt law are restrictions imposed by gov. for the greater good, banning snowmobiles is also supposed to be to protect the land, air, animal habitat etc, for the greater good. The gov. limits your personal freedoms every min of every day for the greater good. This is not news. It is not meant to be fair and the pollution created by cars is bad too, but last I looked two wrongs don't make a right. So let’s cut the sophomoric libertarian "freeman on the range" bullshit. Those days are long gone never to return. We live in a complex society that requires a great deal of compromise on all of our parts to succeed. And no where does the constitution mention that life shall be fair.

Bush's tax breaks did not give back to the poor nor did they steal from the rich (which I am all in favor of doing). They ignored the poor and gave the rich some serious dough. The deficit is the result of the disparity between spending and revenue. He lowered revenue and increased spending. His congress, can't blame Clinton for spending.

AS to the documents. I think the jury is still out. Annika's insistence that since the documents look as if they were created in Word, they were created in word is a tautology not proof of anything. I am sure that we will hear from a gaggle of so called unbiased experts this coming week who will all give their opinions. I will listen and try to determine the credibility of each. To insist this is dirty tricks politics right out of the box is childish and shrill.

I, too, am no great fan of JK's but I am a truly repulsed by GB. He has IMHO nothing to recommend him. No heart, no soul, no education, no insight into history or human affairs, constricted in his world view, never traveled, basically a shallow simple guy who fronts for a nefarious group of neocons with a world view I despise. And a world view Bush cannot comprehend which is why if he ever looses his place while speaking he cannot make two extemporaneous sentences that stay on topic.

Kerry is not a charismatic guy, not a great thinker but is, I think, decent and thoughtful
and will not do much harm. He will not appoint a judge like Thomas or Scalia, he will not repel out allies in Europe and elsewhere where GB is a laughing stock. He can read and comprehend the constitution and I think will respect it. He will rid us of the influence of the religious right and their witchcraft. He will not insist that Evolution is just a theory and the verdict is still out. He may comprehend more science and certainly will not mispronounce nuclear to show what a regular beer drinking kinda guy he is.

BTW what does "play the dozens with us mean” I’ve never heard this expression.

.....guys like Mike still like to french kiss Michael Moron (Foolishhype 911)

mike:

how can you say a person is a 'decent' guy when he's been PROVEN to be LIAR and threatens people with legal action when they are proving his deceit to be true? just curious.

GWB is a laughing stock in europe, but it's a elitist nervous laugh my friend.

if anyone practices witchtcraft, it's the withered LW, baby-killing hags of your party, who are on their knees s------ the d--- of the devil; who, by the way, will be laughing at all of you on your way to hades when you realize you are wrong.

by then it will be too friggin' late my friend. get a grip now before it's too late - you are an intelligent person, it's a shame to lose you to the dark side.

Hi Paul,

As you seem to be one of the real intelligent voices around here let me ask you this: when you visulize my tongue in MM mouth how do you feel? Get wood? What? It seems to concern you and I would like to know why? Really, Paul, how about his cock? In my mouth? or yours? Or your's in his? Mine in your's? What Paul? Do you like it when I talk dirty to you, Paul? Hard yet?

Ok, that was fun....

Now Ole Dave-Morality? You know what it is? Tell me. Please. I need some, really bad.

Acting in a moral fashion would preclude killing 15000 iraqi's because they are in the way of our misplaced rage about 911. So tell me how that is giving the country a lesson in morals?

mike:

you're not worth it. lucky for you though, i'm not in charge of where you end up at life's end. you are. but i'll tell you what - you do make for good sport. i'm done with you - hope all goes well for you in your life.

Let's hope Mike doesn't choose a career writing erotica.

d-rod: that's funny.
pity the poor [you-fill-in-the-blank].

Hey mike, I know your type.
You're just a prick that likes to argue and try to stir things up. Why don't you piss off and go suck up to your good 'ol Lib elitist jerk-off buddies, like that traitor Kerry?

Yes Dave the dark side........OOOOOOOO!!!! Are you some closet Star Wars junkie?

What are you ten years old? Hades? Control of my life? This place is really fun. An amusement park full of rides to stupidity and religious dogma. Nobody even makes a pretense of discussing the issues. I enter the site let my views be known and all you guys can talk about is me kissing MM or my soiled soul.

Traitor Kerry? what does that make Bush, who ducked the service altogether? Oh, he flew some jets over Texas but would not answer the draft when his number would have been called and can’t produce the proof that he finished his service. Chain knee got his five deferments. Hey did you here Hastert got out for a bad shoulder and then wrestled in college for four years?

But, you should know this; if Kerry died tomorrow and the Dem's ran a ferret I would still not vote for W. because this election is not about the Right and the Left, the Dem’s, liberals, republicans or neocons. It is about stupid and smart and an understanding of the world and that we are a nation of laws and that bill of rights is immutable and the constitution rules the land, ALL THE FUCKING TIME! Not just when things are going smoothly. That god is not present and caring. That war is the wrong solution to the problems at hand and it is the easy choice for the intellectually bankrupt. All life is precious, and as less than 5% of the earth’s population we don’t get to make all the rules all the time. 5% never forget that. America is 225 years old and if it wants to last another 200 years it better give up the notion that it can beat up everybody on the block and learn to play nicely because if you think about where the Chinese will be in 100 years you ought to be very concerned. Bush is not what this country needs. He cannot think 10 feet ahead of himself so what makes you think he has a plan that will help keep America in an advantaged position? Iraq is a debacle, there seems to be no way to get out and leave a stable country behind. We have lost control of a third of the country, as we have in Afghanistan. More heroin is being produced now than under the Taliban and the money it earns is funding out enemies.

Mike,
"playing the dozens" is what the common, ordinary, hard working people of the world call a contest of wits where insults are traded in turn. Perhaps if you stop whining about the tax cuts not going to the poor & start hanging out wtht the poor you'll hear that & many other expressions you've never heard before.

As for sometimes there not being virtue in civility - I disagree. Even when you're about to kill a man it costs nothing to be polite.

The park land - it's public land. The government is not the proprietor; rather it is a custodian that holds it in trust for us. The idea that the government owns property that the people doesn't is contrary to our system of government. "Of the people, by the people, for the people" - does that ring a bell at all?
Now yes, the government in its role of custodian is responsible for seeing that the land is not squandered & is available for all. But to claim that snowmobiling or using any other form of transport is so destructive that the government must forbid it in all areas is the height of a Green's crack dream. Bottom line though: the governemnt's job is to protect us (in part) & our property from harm unduly caused by others, especially other governments. I see nothing anywhere that leads me to believe that government is a surrogate parent that is supposed to direct our behavior for our own good.

As for the "sophomoric libertarian 'freeman on the range' bullshit" - if that's how you view freedom then it's no wonder you'd be more content if we were all sucking the tit of the nanny state as hard & often as you seem to be.

Look, at one point you claim that two wrongs don't make a right, but the majority of your justification for government control of our lives is based on the fact that government has always operated that way. Do you understand the logical disconnect involved with that? On the microcasm you're saying that principle overrides tradition, but on the macrocasm you're saying that tradition overrides principle. Please, choose one & be consistent.

Now I never claimed that Bush's tax cuts effected the poor one way or the other. Please re-read. The part about misunderstanding Robin Hood was meant to counter what I correctly assumed was your misguided ideas about property rights being subordinate to your class warfare agenda.
The rich as you'd call them obviously have a talent for making money. The poor do not. You think it's right to steal from the rich to give to the poor?
Let's rephrase the concept so you can see how foul the principle behind your view is:

Let's say a guy has 5 girlfriends that he sees on a semi-regular basis. He obviously has a talent for attracting members of the oppostie sex.
Now let's say there's a guy who has 1 girlfriend he sees on a sporadic basis. He obviously doesn't have a talent for attracting members of the opposite sex.
What you propose is for the government to step in, through the threat or use of force, & take away X number of girlfriends from the first guy & compel them to start seeing the second guy.

All in an effort to make the results of life fair, even though you yourself said that nothing in the constituton says life isn't fair. & in that process you'll give government more power to tramp on individual liberties which you probably don't want to be trampled. That's the problem with Marxism; it seeks to appease the tiger by helping it grow bigger & hungrier.

As far as Bush expanding government - you're right. He did that & he shouldn't have. The deficit doesn't bother me as it's not that big a deal, but a bigger government does. Ya see bigger governments tend to favor people like you who want socio/economic programs that increase the government's power. Governments love power perhaps even more than it loves the misinformed fools who see that they get it.

As for Kerry - you bought the jumbo rocks didn't ya? You're seriously telling me that Kerry is decent. thoughtful & won't do much harm? Again, I repeat, humanoid please!

Kerry is of the Antoinette mold, minus the good intentions. If he could get away with it, "let them eat cake" would be his slogan. They boy has no clue about what the ordinary people are like; he just operates on talking points that his elites tell him are important to the common people.

But specifically, about our allies in europe; fuck them. They are not our concern. If they approve of us or not it makes no difference. That's cause we are not a european country - we're a republic comprised of American States. The rets of the world can literally go to hell if they so choose - it concerns us not in the least, nor should it.

The judges Kerry would appoint would be no better than the ones Bush appoints - that is they won't be justices who can discern waht "congress shall make no law..." means, nor will they stand up for the constitution when faced with a compelling government interest. But odds are Kerry's picks would be slightly more adept at choosing which parts of the constitution they like & don't like.

As for Kerry reading & comprehending the constitution - which constituton are you talking about? Sure as hell ain't mine. Remember that pesky litle thing called the Bill of Rights? I know for a fact Kerry has voted for several laws that are a bitchslap to the notion of at least two of those amendments. Bush ain't much better, but to say that Kerry will respect anything other than his own lust for power is laughable. To claim he has read the constitution & acts in accordance with it is foolishness.

As for evolution being a theory & the verdict still being out - I think you've made that case fine all on your own.

Look, you want a socilaist America where the government dictates our behavior for our safety. That's fine. Have at it. But first you'll have to kill off all the people like me, & we're damned stubborn about such things as living.

As to the documents that were the original topic of these comments - look around. Make a case in opposition to Miss Annika's if you wish. From what little I've seen I happen to think she's correct, but make an intelligent argument to the contary & I'm sure she or any one of us will be happy to discuss the issues you bring up.

A nit-picking but important point (for the people who mentioned license renewal issues)--I'm pretty sure that FCC licenses are issued only to individual stations, not to the network as a whole.

If I were the owner of a CBS affiliate station, I would not be very happy with the way this has been handled so far by CBS.

Publicola-

I gotta go home and start the weekend. Its 9 and I'm still in the office.

I'll get back to you tomorrow.

Mike,

I didn't expect to see you here too. Well, I have to respond to a couple of your comments:

[Acting in a moral fashion would preclude killing 15000 iraqi's because they are in the way of our misplaced rage about 911.]

and........

[It is very personal stuff. Ask the 15000 dead iraqi's or the relatives of the 1000 dead Americans how personal it is.]

I know that they are both pretty much the same thing, but I need to point out the Left's consistency in their logic to blame Bush first and America second.

True, there are over a thousand dead American GI's, but Bush didn't kill them. The Iranian- and Syrian-funded Islamafascists that are trying to take advantage of the post-Saddam power vacuum did.

Misplaced rage about 9/11? Where should it go then? Towards Israel? What was the alternative to removing a member of the Axis of Evil? Invading Saudi Arabia perhaps or maybe Pakistan? I doubt the Left would even support invading Iran instead of Iraq. Am I right?

15,000 dead Iraqis...... That is tragic, but there are questions to be asked about that toll. How many of those dead Iraqis are innocent civilians? How many of those dead Iraqis were killed in terrorist attacks? How many of those dead Iraqis were killed ACCIDENTALLY by our troops? How many of them were really terrorists? How many of them were helping or sheltering the terrorists? Why should I believe those numbers anyway? The anti-gun groups use junk data to forward their agenda by inflating their statistics with suicides and accidents in addition to the crimes.

I've heard stories about how the militants have been using children as couriers and ammo suppliers during skirmishs with our troops. The terrorists are taking advantage of our restrictive rules of engagement because they know we won't intentionally kill the terrorist-assisting kids. There were also stories in Somalia that the militants would hide behind groups of unarmed women while shooting at our troops because we couldn't shoot back due to the same restrictive rules of engagement.

I find it odd that the Left goes batshit over the deaths of Iraqis during the Bush-led occupation due to the terrorists and insurgents, but the Left didn't shriek their opposition as much over the thousands that died under Saddam's reign.

FIN

See you at Moxie's.......

patrick/reagan80/publico:

on the money.

mike is only capable of regurgitating sound bites from the left vs. discussing the FACTS which history lays out before us. i admire your attempts to mentor him, but most likely it fruitless to engage in rational discussion with him unless it is for yor amusement. the reason you can tell he is not a true lw independent thinker worthy of the attempt at reason (NOT conversion, although it would be to his benefit) is that once you lead him down the path of fact,reason and rationale and he understands what's happening, he comes unraveled.
i'll have to admit, though, he has provided lively, easy sport and generated some lively exchanges. kudos to mike! thanks for the sport. as long as we can realize that he is what the new lw typifies, i have no worries about this country's future. just give the junkies their dope (a forum to spout their idiotic rhetoric on) and they will be content not to try and actually think and act on their own. THAT Would be unnerving!

mike, if you see this post, thanks, you've been a real gem.

Hi Reagan80 and others-

I think the basic misunderstanding here is you believe that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with the "WAR AGAINST TERRORISM" as established by you president and his henchmen. I don't. Therefore all the carnage IS the responsibility of Bush et al., not the outcome of Islamofacists as you say. There really is nothing to say to one another after that. I believe you have swallowed a bunch of lies that depict the world in a false light and then a policy developed and then action. It is NOT the ONLY way it could have gone. And that is why I am so distressed about all the killing which I think is/was needless.

3000 dead in NY is an earth shattering tragedy and it should have inspired action. I have great concern about the Islamic fundamentalist movement. They are a monstrous group and I am searching for a solution to this long term problem. However, I also can distinguish it from the serious anger that inhabits millions of Muslims toward America because of our inconsistent and hypocritical policies through out the world. These are two very different sets of people. Most of the people fighting against our "liberation" or "Occupation" of Iraq are of the later variety. They are more akin to you folks and myself as well, if we were in our homes basically having a decent or even not so decent life, maybe our brother-in-law was falsely imprisoned or had his hand cut off by the secret service. But other than stories about the repressive government we had a life, ran a small spice business in the market and our two kids were in school. Then, after reading about the US and the 911 attack we hear that our some Americans suspect we are to blame and that our country is planning to attack America. Everyday in the newspapers we read the story and there appears to be an escalating frenzy about our country until the day comes when rockets and planes are overhead and life as we know it is over. No market, no schools, no government, no electricity, no telephone, no water.

Now Reagan, and the rest of you, would you go dancing into the streets? Or might you take you AR-15's and AK's and colts and s&w's and fight back? Would you be angry that an invader took away everything you had? You’re Iraqi or your Precious American way of life? Do you think only Americans have a way of life worth protecting or defending from an invader?

It is the war on this level that I think you all fail to understand. There are 15 million people in Iraq. How many in their day to day life gave a rat’s ass about Saddam? They got up in the morning had a meal sent their kids to school and went to work. Road crews paving or pouring concrete, shop owners putting their goods on the racks, dress makers sewing, bakers making bread, insurance adjusters looking over dented cars, accountants doing some companies books, lawyers trying to get a clients son out on bail. These everyday people have had their country decimated by us and you expect them to be grateful? They are concerned about their children’s education and how, now that the schools are closed they will make up the work, get into high school or go to college.

America's arrogance and hubris is monumental. We expect to kill thousands to set them free and be praised. If you read it in a book of fiction you would laugh, but you read it in the newspapers everyday and you gloat and get put out because they "don't understand" what we are trying to do and that they are shooting back in the only effective way they can, guerilla warfare, like the first years of our "revolution" against superior firepower.

Please tell me how this invasion was a good thing first, for America, and second for the people of Iraq?

I have been following the CBS News coverage of the Killian memos with interest.

Now that it is clear that most if not all of the memos are forgeries, I cannot see any reason for Dan Rather to remain employed as anchorman of the CBS Evening News.

If you have control or access to such a large number of the masses, your research team or you must deal with facts.

Every day that Mr. Rather remains as the face of CBS News brings further lost credibility to your once great news organization. I can no longer trust what you report as truth, please forward this message to the appropriate person, as my request that Mr. Rather resign as soon as possible

"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." John F. Kerry, 12/16/03

If Kerry were decent or thoughtful, he might realize he fucked himself.

Mike...if the US were ruled by an indigenous dictatorship that behaved like the Saddam Hussein regime...and if another nation invaded with the credible intent of overthrowing the regime and establishing a democracy..I'd be fighting on the side of the invader. Wouldn't you? Isn't the idea that a dictatorship if OK as long as it's people of *our* nationality a rather extreme form of nationalism?

The idea that ordinary people aren't affected by the regime is, I believe, quite incorrect. How about the hundreds of thousands who were drafted and killed in the war against Iran, or the others killed in the war against Kuwait? How about the Kurds that were gassed, or the Marsh Arabs who had their environment deliberately destroyed for political reasons? Don't they count?

David,

Those people surely count and all wonton killing is a tragic. The problem is that you ask would I join the forces of a trusted liberator. What makes you so sure we are a trusted liberator with good intentions? Our history is that we support dictators when it suites us and not when it doesn't. Did we not overthrow the elected Chilian president and install a military dictatorship? How about our support for the religious dictators in Saudi Arabis, did we do nothing to stop Idi Amine (sp), Suharto in Indonesia, Batista in Cuba, Syria, N. Korea, and dozens of others.

Do you really think the Bush Cabal just got up one day and started thinking about the poor folks in Iraq and how nice it would be to set them free? If you do there is this beautiful bridge outside my window .....

And the affected by the dictator ship issue-How affected have you been by various repressive conditions that exist in the USA? I'll assume for the moment that you are white and middle class. How many times have you been stopped and frisked for no reason? Pulled over by a cop for no reason. Known someone killed by the police for no reason. How often have you had the FBI come to you door because of the literture you checked out of the library? How many of your friends are in prison for 5-10 years because of a 1.5 gram cocane bust or an once of pot? How many people do you know who were leaving work duing the RNC and were swept up with some protesters and kept in jail for 72 hours? How many people do you know that had a cop draw his gun on them, point it at their back and yell stop or I'll shoot, when no crime had been committed? (the last was me) How many of the Kent state students killed by the NG did you know? How many of the Black Panthers murdered by the police did you know?

What I'm pointing out is that its a big country and the stuff of Dictatorship goes down every day. But few people actually know about it or care about it since their family is there in the morning when they get up and the food is in the fridg and the car in the driveway. In Iraq it was more wide spread for sure, but I don't see that many people ready to surrender their homeland to the USA. I think you would be far less willing to do so than you seem to think.

What if the Russians made noises about invading in the 30's because 12 million african americans were being repressed, lynched, segregated, imprisoned, denied services and the vote. WOuld you have joined them in storming the capital? Would the black population joined them in overthrowing of the repressive regeme of Hoover who turned the fire hoses on GI's gathered in Washington DC?

D-ROD- In my mind Kerry is going to persue a policy in Iraq not much different than Bush, and for that I am saddend, he would do better to cut himself off from this diasterous adventure and pledge to remove the army in 12 months. Too bad I don't think he will.

Well then, anti-war leftists like you should be campaigning for Nader. The Germans and French would be better off under the Nazis, the Iraqis were happier being fed into wood chippers - right.

D-rod, I am not anti- war only anti dumb war.

Making careless analogies doesn't make points. The Nazi's crossed their borders to attempt european domination and occupation.

Iraq did in 91 and was severly beaten. They did nothing of the sort in 2002.

Hi, it's Paul. ,,just checking in. "Mike" was fun yesterday ..typical liberal - can't take a punch.
This is a cool site to have stumbled upon.

Mike? That was a funny (Filthy!) post you left yesterday .......un-liberal
How's it goin?

Do you think Kerry's still got a chance?

Hi Paul,

I really don't know. ANd liberal used to be something I considered a very unappealing label. It was way too mainstream.

i value freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas. Like Reagan, i don't believe in suppressing wrong opinions, because i know that free people, when given the chance will always recognize bullshit when they see it.

But i also value intellectual honesty. And i regret it when i see my comments section hijacked by people who lack intellectual honesty, and refuse to stay on the topic, and ignite flame wars that eat up the bandwidth of my gracious mu.nu benefactor. These people should get their own blog. It's quite telling that trolls almost never have their own blog. Why is that?

i'm not home this weekend and i can't monitor things like i would normally. Have fun with this flame war, but don't forget about the original topic of my post either.

If that's true Mike, you should be anti-Kerry. He voted for the Iraq war and has stated he wants to increase the size of the military.

Annika,

You think, that without the evidence fully debated nor you seeing any of the actual paperwork, just coppies, it is appropriate to begin a compaign (one that inevitably will fail) to have Rather fired?

You think we should spend time thinking about that? The horribly left wing biased media is at your throat once again, is that it? You can defend a man who given the opportunity and the mood of his pug Ashcroft, would steal that right from you in a NY minute. I don't think you know who these people really are.

Paul,

I am not pro Kerry. He is the candidate of the democratic party, which is, simply the left wing of the same party the republicans belong to. The single party american system which continues to elect lawyers who are fatting up their resume's waiting to join the real corridors of power in the corporate world.

I rarely talk Kerry up. I always talk Bush down in the hope that he will not be re-unelected. I know people like to say it is a intellectually bakrupt position, the anything but Bush posture, but it is all I've got. The devil I know v. the devil I don't.

Miss Annika,
My apologies for straying off the main subject of this post.

Mike,

It's not about left v. right - It's about the accuracy of the press in relation to their bias. In other words, it's yet more proof that the press will disregard facts, or at the least not adequately check those facts, if it furthers their agenda. In this case it would seem to be to slam Bush but that's a symptom of the disease - not the disease itself.

The disease that Miss Annika & so many others are raising hell about is that the mainstream media will further its agenda even if sloppy & perhaps dishonest methods have to be used.

I've been aware of this tendency fo rmany years, as have most politically aware gun owners. Long before Bush bashing was fashionable the press routinely committed erros of fact & logic when reporting news abour firearms & firearms laws. So I & many other gun nuts are glad to see that non-gun nuts are catching on to the idea that the mainstream press is not trustworthy. Although at its root it's still disturbing that such tactics are used to further any agenda on the part of the press.

For the evidence - I think it merits enough to question whether Rather is reliable. His responses that I've seen so far have been less than re-assuring that there either was no mistake or it was na honest one. As far as firing him goes, that's something CBS should decide. I don't wacth t.v. (remember, I stopped relying on the mainstream media long ago) so I have no dog in this one so to speak. But if I were a CBS viewer or had any control over their programming I'd call for a thorough investigation into this matter with all documents available for independent review & if Rather was found to be less than honest or competent, then firing him wouldn't be something I'd shy away from.

Hi Publicola,

I agree with you nearly entirely. I have no use for guns and think they should be tightly controlled. I do not interpret the 2nd. Amendment ( A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ) to mean anything more than raising a militia. But we can leave that for another time.

The most distressing aspect of the media on this planet is that every year there are fewer players. I detest the lack of enforcement of the monopoly statutes. As a result, the corporate influence in our government is truly depressing. I did not hear a confirmation but there were reports that on Sunday during the 60 min. show, Direct TV (a Murdoch company) had signal problems in many areas that just happened to be closely contested states. Pretty scary. I am not terribly concerned about the individual "talents"
in the news rooms but rather the vice presents of network affairs and their ilk. They set the tone and overlay the filters that constitute the biases we see, and as you say they are not just left-right but more far reaching. The entertainment component of the news is a terrible trend. The cross linking of the media's movie, television, newspaper, publishing business is a real threat. Did you ever see the movie Bulworth? It has a wonderful scene of the candidate, Warren Beatty, in an interview with a news woman where he harangues her for being unable to ask him important questions since they essentially work for the same man. He, the big donors to his campaign and she, the same men, who are directors of the media conglomerate that owns her station.

This is an encapsulation of the state of our free press and news services. And it gets worse each time the FCC relaxes the rules on ownership in the marketplace.

"The most distressing aspect of the media on this planet is that every year there are fewer players."

You say that as the 65th comment on a blog post with trackbacks from five other blogs and yet don't see ANY irony there?

i suggest you resign from your blog.

CBS could at least show as much class as the BBC in February when chairman Gavyn Davies resigned after being exposed for willfully sexing up British Intelligence on Iraq’s WMD capabilities. BBC director general Greg Dyke was also forced to resign for what was described as defective editorial systems and allowing Radio 4 Today reporter Andrew Gilligan to broadcast unfounded and grave allegations without checking the facts.

The new acting BBC chairman, Lord Ryder, issued an unreserved apology.

Mike...seems to me that you are arguing that, since America is not a perfect society, nothing we do could be good, and no one in other countries should seek or accept out help.

If you had lived in occupied Europe, would you have refused the help of British forces on the grounds that Britain's policies have not always been wise and humane? (And, more specifically, on the grounds of Churchill's support for an imperial policy in India?)

Also--Mike--"..there were reports that on Sunday during the 60 min. show, Direct TV (a Murdoch company) had signal problems in many areas that just happened to be closely contested states. Pretty scary." If the thought is that this were done deliberately, I don't see how it would be technically possible. Direct TV is a satellite service, and I'm quite sure that broadcast satellites don't have separate antennas (antennae?) for each state they serve.

Dave-

1. The analogy to occupied Europe is a not sound. Only believing the total package of American propaganda about Saddam would leave you thinking Iraq was an occupied country. It was not. Don't misinterpret me please, I DO NOT support Saddam BUT I am always suspicious of the black and white depictions that emanate from our government. I know dozens of people that have visited Cuba and found it to be a fine place to live with a populace that appeared relatively content, educated and anxious to enjoy trade and exchange of ideas with America. Remember, Cuba has a higher rate of literacy than America. As did the Soviet Union. As I tried to describe in my previous post, the everyday life of most inhabitants of a country is not affected by the policies of the government. The Iraqi conflict has no impact on my day to day existence. And my argument never used PERFECT to describe anythng. That is the polarizing and fallacious device that you use to argue and make my point appear weaker.

I gave specifics. Don't put your ideas in my mouth, call them mine then take a stand against them.

Dave J-

What we do here is meaningless chatter. 10 companies control 99% (guess) of what is disseminated in the world as news, entertainment, publishing, etc. To think that the internet has made a serious inroad into this is, I think, naive.

CBS is still standing behind the memos so how, with the conflicting experts, can you ask that they apologize? I am as I write holding in my hand a selectric type ball that has superscript for the 1/2 and 1/4 keys. Do you swear that there was no technology that could have put the th on a similar ball for a different type face? That is simply wishful thinking. Also, I once owned an IBM executive and it did justified spacing. I don’t recall if mine had a th. subscript key, but there is no reason it could not have

Dave- Direct TV does have very narrow broadcast capabilities on its newest satellite that can cove an area as small as a large state. As I said, it could just have been a very rainy night in many areas and the outage was a coincidence.

Mike,

Hi there.

Hey Mike, "these go to eleven..."

72 comments? i'd be happy about this new record for one of my posts, if i wasn't so fucking pissed off that there's even a debate about the obvious forgeries being obvious forgeries.

If i look outside my window now i can see a tree. You can say that it is not a tree and i will tell you that it is a tree because i know what a tree looks like and it looks like a tree.

If you then say to me "Annika's insistence that since the thing outside her window looks like a tree, then it is a tree is a tautology not proof of anything" i'm going to call you a fucking idiot and disregard everything you say from that point on.

Get your own blog Mike. You've had your say here. And your sophistry got boring after about three posts. These comments are now closed.