Dan Rather Commentary

[tw]

Dan Rather's radio commentary today was blunt. He notes that no proof nor indication exists that Saddam Hussein is a threat to US security. But then even the CIA director was forced to admit that. And yet George Jr decided, in secret, to declare Osama bin Laden as a lesser threat. No matter that bin Laden declared war on the US and American allies - and attacks. Saddam threatens no one, attacks no one, and yet is more dangerous? If George Jr learned history, then he also knows the same attitude towards Castro is what made Castro so popular in Cuba.

Last February, in secret, George Jr ordered that bin Laden was no longer America's enemy #1. That honor was bestowed on George Jr's original target - the target before George Jr was even president. George Jr's original objective was to correct mistakes made by his father's administration. They include many who served in both administrations. They protected Saddam by doing champaign celebrations rather than doing what polictical types are suppose to do during a surrender. Those same political types got us ensnared in an Iraqi morass after 1991 - no fly zone, protect the Kurds, protect the Shia, protect Kuwait, keep massive military forces in the Gulf that only promote hatred by and recruits for Osama bin Laden, et al.

Osama bin Laden is not a threat to the US, according to our President. Saddam was and is again the number 1 threat to US. Same man who did not even know what the Oslo Accords were about (during the election) is confident that Saddam is planning to attack the US. Does he really need proof? He is George Jr. That alone is all he needs to know that Saddam Hussein is a threat - no matter what the CIA or all American allies say. Reality be damned. George Jr just did not want us to know what he knew in February 2002. That Osama bin Laden is not a threat to the US but that Saddam Hussein is. He had to keep it a secret until we could believe his little myth.

[Cairo]

This is a joke, right? The only thing that made
a little bit of sense was "Reality be Damned",
that sums up this whole post.

Is this a mockery of Dan Rather?...to prove to
us how out of touch he is.

[slang]

I hate "to be tagged by someone else's [political] label. I try really hard not to do that with other people, particularly people who are in public service and politics."
--Dan Rather to Mike Rosen on KOA Denver, November 1995.

President Bush's selection for Chief-of-Staff is a "champion of the hard-Right."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, December 1988

.

I dont expect to convince anyone here that there is a smoking gun proving Iraq should be attacked. Smoking guns are rare, and when they exist, there is little debate.

This radio commentary is one sided though. Dan Rather leans left and has been accused of blatently misrepresenting the news. This isn't a crime so far as I know so there havent been any indictments against him. His credibility is fading though as we read Bernie Goldberg's book;<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895261901/ref%3Dnosimacluecom/103-3775593-3776606"> Bias </a>, and look through some of his quotes from the well documented web site;<a href="http://www.ratherbiased.com/index2.htm"> Ratherbiased.com</a> He's not a bad guy, but he spins the news.

He tells us that the CIA director, George Tenet, considers an attack from Iraq against the US a low risk. I would agree with that he's a "low risk...for now". The chances that he will or can attack are low. This is what Rather said:

"He [Tenet] notes that no proof nor indication exists that Saddam Hussein is a threat to US security."

Tenet also says that if we were to attack saddam he would likely use bio and chem weapons, so he admits that they do have them, even though Iraq says they dont. This was the original issue against Iraq as I understand it, Saddam was NOT to have chem/bio weapons.

<a href="http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/10/10102002134714.asp">Iraq: U.S. Administration Says Saddam Still An Urgent Threat - Radio Free Europe - Oct.10, 02 </a>

"CIA Director George Tenet wrote in a letter to the U.S. Congress that he believes Iraq is now not likely to mount an unprovoked attack using chemical or biological weapons. Tenet added that he probably would use them if the United States took military action against Iraq."

So it seems Iraq has these weapons, but is incapable of launching an attack against the US

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2246037.stm">UN resolutions on Iraq - BBC, Sept.9, 02</a>

"The resolution also called for the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of:
All chemical and biological weapons, and all stocks of agents and components"

This looks like a violation of the cease fire agreement to me.

It seems to me that if he is likely to continue developing deployment systems that would make him dangerous to us directly.

Also If he is so willing to disregard the UN resolutions, it seems logical that he'd attack us or<a href='http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64174,00.html'> give weapons to Al-Qaeda to attack us.</a> We havent actually seen proof of this but Condi Rice says that <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/26/us.iraq.alqaeda/index.html"> Iraq has trained al-Qaeda in chemical weapons </a> Can she divulge the source, or the proof? I don't know, she didn't, but it got my attention.

Is it conceivable that al-Qaeda could smuggle some of Saddam's WOMD into the US? Given the vulnerability of our ports, the sad state of the INS, and most of the US border being unguarded, I'd say yes. At the very least, I would think that these weapons could be imported for another domestic terror group to use them.

So, is this a slam dunk either way, no. It isn't any more rediculous to think that saddam is a threat to us than to think he isn't. Dan Rather just spun the commentary, that's his right.

"And yet George Jr decided, in secret, to declare Osama bin Laden as a lesser threat."

That's a great point. OBL as a threat has been downgraded, even after we recieved<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/15/terror.warning/index.html"> a warning of spectacular attack against us from al-Qaeda.</a> This doesn't make any sense unless you take a look at supply and demand of WOMDs. Can a group of al-Qaeda create them themselves? I don't think so. Can they buy them from Saddam? Possibly. It was my understanding that Bush's assessment of Iraq being capable of making and selling/distributing WOMDs was greater because OBL has the greatest chance of aqquiring them through Saddam. If you take the possibility of al-Qaeda getting the weapons out of the equation, that leaves them with a much lesser (although substancial as we have seen with the use of airliners) threat inside the US.

OBL may very well be more of an immediate threat , but I see the logic in going after Iraq first

"Saddam threatens no one, attacks no one, and yet is more dangerous?"

I think this sentence needs a little work. Saddam threatens no one, at this time, attacks no one, at this time, and yet is more dangerous now? The issue, again, is that he's proven himself capable of some very naughty deeds. Would it be reasonable to leave him alone? A war may not be the answer, I agree. The reality is though, that he'll be danger to the world given long range delivery systems and/or nukes. Given his past willingness to kill us and his neighbors, I think if he doesn't let the inspectors have access, we hammer him.<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002-11-25-poll-usat_x.htm"> Most American think that's reasonable too.</a>

How long will we let him stall for time to finish weapons projects?

"Osama bin Laden is not a threat to the US, according to our President"

That seems like a stretch. I know this is a quote from Rather but do you know where I might find a source that says exactly that? CNN would have that plastered all over the headlines if he actually said that.

"Same man who did not even know what the Oslo Accords were about (during the election) is confident that Saddam is planning to attack the US."

It does seem pretty goofy. But really, what concern is it to him if Oslo drives an Accord or a Chevy? Relax, that was a joke, I couldnt help myself. Anyway, he's an idiot, if you insist he is then have at it. Keep your expectations low.

"Does he really need proof? He is George Jr. That alone is all he needs to know that Saddam Hussein is a threat - no matter what the CIA or all American allies say.
Reality be damned. George Jr just did not want us to know what he knew in February 2002."

I can see people having this opinion. I dont agree, but I can understand the anti-Bush folks believing this. I dont care for the things he's done myself, and he's my guy.

If this whole mess were as black and white as Dan Rather paints it , I would agree him. From my research though, it isnt. If the whole country felt an Iraq war was unjust,<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,62861,00.html">it wouldnt be happening.</a>

So that's my long opinion, am I wrong?

[Cairo]

Hi slang,
Very nicely put. You say things so much nicer
than I do...Hehehe.

However, I think tw used Dan Rather as a segue to
vomit his own hate-spewing opinion. I highly doubt
that Rather would refer to the President of the United States as "George Jr." in any capacity.
Especially in such an obsessive, repetative
manner.
The total lack of comprehension in History, and
the many outright lies gave it away. Had Rather
stated any of this utter garbage, he would be put
out to pasture immediately due to senility.

[juju]

Originally posted by Cairo
I think tw used Dan Rather as a segue to vomit his own hate-spewing opinion.

These are pretty harsh words. I didn't perceive any hatred from tw at all. Am I missing some other post somewhere?

[slang]

<a href="http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/21b7c626/bc/spew.wav?BCUXd59AIYC_NNkn"> What's with all the spewing? </a>

[Cairo]

juju,
I'm sure you wouldn't perceive unfounded attacks and slander against the President as hate-spewing,
because in Libbyland it's only hate-spewing when conservatives tell the truth about DemocRATS.
However, in a court of law, such obvious lying would result in jail time.

As far as "harsh words"? Not at all. Using deception to give credibility to garbage is
harsh.

[Cairo]

Hi slang,
I can't get the link to work. What's in it?

[slang]

Originally posted by Cairo
Hi slang,
I can't get the link to work. What's in it?

Do you have audio?? Have a realplayer or something similar??

[slang]

-

[elSicomoro]

Aaaaah! My eyes...they...hurt!

[wolf]

Good point on the first part.

But, you know, the scary part is that as descriptive as that is, you'll still clear out the store on a saturday afternoon with an announcement like that ...

[jaguar]

because in Libbyland it's only hate-spewing when conservatives tell the truth about DemocRATS.

*falls down laughing*
All we need is one more and we'll have a regular marx brothers. No pun intended, i swear.

[Cairo]

jaguar,
*hands on hips swaying back and forth*
Hey big boy, is that a pun in your pocket,
or are you just happy to see me? *smoooooch*

[slang]

Originally posted by sycamore
Aaaaah! My eyes...they...hurt!

Let me open up my "Time Life Books:How to blind everyone that reads your post, html guide" and see if there are any instructions for braille.