|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 23, 2004 0:07:49 GMT -5
So your basis for claiming that Rather intentionally did this is that "everyone knows CBS is biased"? Well I say that everyone knows Bush has been heck bent on invading Iraq. Again, you keep trying make this to be about Dan Rather. OTOH, I keep asking how George Bush is any different. Claiming that Dan Rather is biased doesn't address that question. Look at the topic of the thread Einstein. This IS about Dan Rather. Trying to deflect the spotlight isn't going to work! There ya go BiK, we now have a thread with GWB's name in the title so Pablo's questions are fair game and your deflections to Dan Rather aren't allowed!  |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 23, 2004 0:35:48 GMT -5
"We begin tonight with a simple, indisputable fact: as a young man, President George W. Bush benefited from family connections to get a place in the Texas Air National Guard, thus avoiding service in Vietnam. As you would guess, this has led to calls for the resignation of Dan Rather." -- Jon Stewart
|
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Sept 23, 2004 3:45:19 GMT -5
I answered it before, I'll answer it again. The situation with George Bush is different because Bush invaded Iraq to remove what he viewed as a threat to America. He took what information was available at the time and as Commander in Chief, made a judgement call with the Country's best interest in mind. Dan Rather on the other hand, made a judgement call with the Kerry campaign's best interest in mind. He used his position at CBS news to try to influence an election. One person (The good President) was trying to protect the Country, the other (taliban Dan) was trying to protect the Kerry campaign. Do you see the difference? I do, very clearly as a matter of fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by FreeBall on Sept 23, 2004 7:36:38 GMT -5
I answered it before, I'll answer it again. The situation with George Bush is different because Bush invaded Iraq to remove what he viewed as a threat to America. He took what information was available at the time and as Commander in Chief, made a judgement call with the Country's best interest in mind. . . . Do you see the difference? I do, very clearly as a matter of fact. The situation with Dan Rather is the same because he aired the story to help remove what he viewed as a threat to America. He took what information was available at the time and made a judgement call with the Country's best interest in mind. Do you see the similarity? I do, very clearly as a matter of fact. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 23, 2004 10:22:58 GMT -5
I answered it before, I'll answer it again. The situation with George Bush is different because Bush invaded Iraq to remove what he viewed as a threat to America. He took what information was available at the time and as Commander in Chief, made a judgement call with the Country's best interest in mind. Dan Rather on the other hand, made a judgement call with the Kerry campaign's best interest in mind. He used his position at CBS news to try to influence an election. One person (The good President) was trying to protect the Country, the other (taliban Dan) was trying to protect the Kerry campaign. Do you see the difference? I do, very clearly as a matter of fact. GWB became president with an agenda of invading Iraq. GWB, used 9/11 as his platform for defending his "need" for invading Iraq. GWB, was not defending the country against Iraq since there had been at the time and still hasn't been any evidence that Iraq was a threat to the US national security. GWB, claimed at the time he had excellent intelligence on the terror threats of Iraq. Claimed he knew exactly where Iraq was hiding WMD's. He had his intelligense officials ignoring anything that didn't point to a reason for invading Iraq and pumped up anything that made even the remotest of potential reasons for invading Iraq. GWB's PNAC cronies were after nothing else in their "war on terror" except an invasion of Iraq - Rummy was quoted very shortly after the 9/11 attacks as asking "Can we use this as an excuse for attacking Iraq?". Now GWB claims he was misled by bad intelligence. GWB has lied about his situation and actions surrounding his national guard assignment, duties, and disappearance. Rather may indeed have been biased in his presentation of the documents claiming information about GWB's national guard years. No one has been killed because of Rather's reporting, many thousands of people have been killed because of GWB's actions in Iraq. Rather took responsibility for his actions in reporting on the documents which may be, but still aren't proven to be forgeries. GWB won't take responsibility or even acknowledge any mistakes he's made during his tenure as presidenty let alone during his tenure in the national guard. Yes BiK, I see major differences. |
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Sept 23, 2004 11:24:15 GMT -5
The situation with Dan Rather is the same because he aired the story to help remove what he viewed as a threat to America. He took what information was available at the time and made a judgement call with the Country's best interest in mind. Do you see the similarity? I do, very clearly as a matter of fact. Taliban Dan is a doof. He hurt the Kerry campaign far more than he helped it and made himself look like an even bigger fool in the process.  Bush still ahead in the polls, put that in your peace pipe and smoke it. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Sept 23, 2004 11:27:43 GMT -5
GWB became president with an agenda of invading Iraq. GWB, used 9/11 as his platform for defending his "need" for invading Iraq. GWB, was not defending the country against Iraq since there had been at the time and still hasn't been any evidence that Iraq was a threat to the US national security. GWB, claimed at the time he had excellent intelligence on the terror threats of Iraq. Claimed he knew exactly where Iraq was hiding WMD's. He had his intelligense officials ignoring anything that didn't point to a reason for invading Iraq and pumped up anything that made even the remotest of potential reasons for invading Iraq. GWB's PNAC cronies were after nothing else in their "war on terror" except an invasion of Iraq - Rummy was quoted very shortly after the 9/11 attacks as asking "Can we use this as an excuse for attacking Iraq?". Now GWB claims he was misled by bad intelligence. GWB has lied about his situation and actions surrounding his national guard assignment, duties, and disappearance. Rather may indeed have been biased in his presentation of the documents claiming information about GWB's national guard years. No one has been killed because of Rather's reporting, many thousands of people have been killed because of GWB's actions in Iraq. Rather took responsibility for his actions in reporting on the documents which may be, but still aren't proven to be forgeries. GWB won't take responsibility or even acknowledge any mistakes he's made during his tenure as presidenty let alone during his tenure in the national guard. Yes BiK, I see major differences. ![]() www.8notes.com/pictures/violin/violin1.jpg [/img] |
|
|
|
Post by rikitikitavei on Sept 23, 2004 11:41:30 GMT -5
I can't stomach my posts any longer and will refrain from posting. Honestly, I'm tired of the unpleasant individual that I've become. I think Roger should have let the Guillotine fall on "BiK" a long time ago. It shames me to think that I likely prevented people from sharing their thoughts on Volleytalk by my behavior, and for that I am sorry. Reading the sad news about the Cincinnatti assistant Coach really made me think. Life is fleeting in so many ways. I regret that I spent so much time here arguing with everybody. There is so much more to life than politics and volleyball. LIAR! LIAAAAARRRRRR! FLIP FLOP! Do you really know how you feel BIK? Or are you getting advise from a higher father! You are like a boil on the inside of an overweight Eastern European womans hairy thigh. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Sept 23, 2004 13:37:38 GMT -5
[/img][/quote] You're sadly becoming just like GWB and the former Iraqi information minister there BiK. Playing the same tune over and over again despit overwhelming contradictory evidence. |
|
