Dan Rather Commentary

[Tobiasly]

Oooh, look! I can post political cartoons too!

[tw]

Originally posted by jaguar
Pity, if your head was not so far up your ass you might have noticed the slightly more subtle message in there. There are few similarities between Vietnam and a possible war on Iraq, a few, but not many. On the other hand the similarities between Chechnya and Afghanistan are growing by the day - large, high tech occuping force doggy by small band of diehard motherfuckers with a death wish using techniques like remote mines and hit and run rocket attacks to attempt to wear down a far larger and better armed force. The paralelles are amazing, and the curious thing is the way in which the Afghanis are adopting exactly the same tactics as the Chechens, i doubt that is a coincidence.

Did you read the strategy for taking out Saddam Hussein? The occupation of Iraq will be same scenario as Chechnya and Viet Nam. American troops would be targets of anyone since any and everyone could be the enemy. You do realize that an attack on Iraq, when Saddam threatens no one, would make America the #1 target of all Islamic terrrorist. Americans would be targets in Iraq just like Americans were in VietNam and Russians are in Chechnya.

Or have I assumed wrongly? Does no one else here understand the full consequences of invading and occupying an Islamic nation that threatens no one? The occupying force, uninvited by nationals or neighbors, becomes the enemy of the every Islamic peoples. Especially an invasion without a 'smoking gun'. Chechnya and Viet Nam - if you had not noticed are what the invasion of Iraq would become.

It does not matter whether you think Iraq threatens anyone. In the Arab world, most all Islamic nations don't like Saddam, BUT they regard Saddam as an irrelevant nuisance. However an American invasion and occupation of an irrelevant Islamic nuisance moves America to the top of a terrorist target list - well above Israel or France.

It was assumed you had basic knowledge - that invasion of Iraq includes many years of US occupation. Just leaving troops in the Gulf created bin Laden's crusade. That occupation of a whole Islamic state, for years, with the intent of installing an American government - look out! Does the word jihad sound familiar? You do understand the consequences of an American military attack of Iraq - or did George Jr forget to mention that occupation part?

George Jr's adminstration did mention that occupation. Was your head up your ass when they mentioned that occupation (lost insult returned to its original owner)? Or do you think years of occupation in Iraq will be like occupation of West Germany? Even the occupation of West Germany was tenuous until the Berlin blockade - 1949. Occupation of Iraq? America is really not a major target of international terrorism - yet.

[jaguar]

I still don't buy a comparison with Vietnam, there are too many differences, Afghanistan and Chechnya i think are fair. It is very, very hard ot tell waht a post-Saddam Iraq will be like, there are many possible and credible scenarios but however it goes, if it goes it won't be pretty.

[tw]

Originally posted by jaguar
It is very, very hard ot tell waht a post-Saddam Iraq will be like, there are many possible and credible scenarios but however it goes, if it goes it won't be pretty.

Its not hard to tell at all. You have already seen what one organized terrorist group - al Qaeda - can do only because we left some troops in the Gulf. Now what happens when you add Islamic Jihad, Hezbulla, and a long list of new Islamic terrorist organizations because the US invades and occupies an Islam country, for years, just to own the oil. To Islamic fundamentalists, this is clearly a Jewish plot to control the world and Islamic oil. There is no mystery about what can happen. We have already seen same in VietNam and just a little bit with bin Laden.

Also don't believe for a minute that all Iraqis hate Saddam. If true, then all Cubans hate Fidel Castro. Many may not like Saddam. But they like uninvited infidels even less who force a government down their throats. This is great risk especially when Iraq is no threat to the US and is not even a threat to his neighbors. Then did we mention what happens in Iran if we occupy Iraq? More wild cards.

Is this dangerous occupation so unknown to too many here? Has the administration so successfully kept the American people from seeing that there may be "no light at the end of the tunnel"? Classic description of VietNam AND and American occupation of an Iraq that threatens no one.

This attack on Iraq is chock full of surprises, unknowns, and dangers. It is what Colin Powel so strongly worried about in the 1990 Gulf War and probably still worries today in Iraq as he quitely opposes war. No clear 'end game' strategy means disaster. Exactly the problem in Somalia. Exactly Johnson's problem in VietNam. Exactly the problem in occupying Iraq.

Maybe I take for granted that everyone understands how dangerous the Iraqi occupation will be. Maybe I have assumed everyone else reads news magazines, listens to all news radio stations and the BBC? Maybe I assume everyone knew about the years of Iraqi occupation? I suspect few here even thought about that part and therefore do not see the VietNam scenario - same as Chechnya - that I have seen for a long time. Did you actually think we would go in, take Saddam, then leave?

[jaguar]

Al Queda would still bomb stuff if the entire american population voted to introduce sharia law. But it will act as a trigger for getting more ordinary folk on the extremeist bandwagon, no doubt. Yes an invasion will be bloody danerous, but exactly how is yet to be seen.

[tw]

Originally posted by jaguar
Al Queda would still bomb stuff if the entire american population voted to introduce sharia law. But it will act as a trigger for getting more ordinary folk on the extremeist bandwagon, no doubt. Yes an invasion will be bloody danerous, but exactly how is yet to be seen.

NASA recently rejected any Israeli astronauts on Shuttles. Israel, and not Americans, are currently high on the list of terrorist targets. What would happen if American invaded and occupied Iraq. Would NASA then have to ban Americans from Space Shuttles because Americans become better targets than Israelis?

I know. I jest. But only to demonstrate that Americans really are not prime terrorist targets - yet.

[Cairo]

tw,
You really need to pick up a History book, and actually ~read~ it! The East used to be the World's super power until the West conquered the East, and how Western culture has been embraced by progressive Eastern Countries, such as women working and going to school, Fast food, and Western luxuries that Saudi Royals and Egypts leaders consume. Not because We forced them to, but because they had a taste of it and liked it. This is what bin Laden's terrorist network and warlord clerics are pissed about! Bin Laden tried to overtake the Saudi Royals to return Saudi Arabia back to hard-core Eastern culture. The Saudi Royals were almost defeated and begged the UN to step in. The UN agreed to protect the Royals with their choice of UN or US troops, Saudi chose US troops(they aren't stupid and knew that UN soldiers could be bought by terrorists). Every US presence over there is at the request of that Middle Eastern Country!

You are so way off on the Israel/Arab conflicts, I doubt anything would help, but I suggest "The Arab-Israeli Wars" By Chaim Herzog.

As you know I believe the Gulf war is still ongoing, and finishing it needs no justification.
However, for arguments sake, an attack on Iraq has the most similarities with the attack on Hitler.
All the hysteria you throw out about what will happen if we confront Saddam, is the exact hysteria
used to allow Hitler to get as far as he did. And as we now know, he was a threat, people were afraid of him, and he intended to slaughter everyone,by any means, who got in his way to World Power.
So, if I understand correctly, your solution is to allow Saddam to acquire Nuclear capabilities, hand them off to terrorists who have suitcase nukes minus the core, let everything play out, including the mass murder of tens of thousands of innocents, along with entire cities being leveled...because then, and only then, will we have our "smoking gun"! You want to see the mushroom cloud before stopping Saddam, and the French waited so long to stop Hitler, they couldn't. I refuse to gamble on human lives, and I refuse to send our soldiers into a Region where a madman has nukes ready and waiting for them, when we can avoid it by going now!

You go ahead and roll the dice of American lives, if they come up "snakes eyes" it's your fault!

[slang]

Originally posted by slang
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.<br>
The first thing I'd like to say is that I value your opinion. The whole purpose for me posting here at the cellar is to learn about why people have thier specific political beliefs and to explain why I have mine. You have made some great points here. Many I actually agree with, some I do not. You've taken the dialog to some places I hadn't expected to go. That's important to me because I am looking for opposing viewpoints and to understand them.<br>
I'm taking the liberty of replacing the term smoking gun with indisputable proof or just proof. Let's take a look. <br>

"Hard right wing extremists need no facts (no smoking gun) to justify actions. After all, because smoking guns are so rare, then Milosevikic needed no smoking gun to justify massacre of non-Serbian Yugoslavians. Is that proof that smoking guns are rare? No. It is proof that the smoking gun did not exist. Extremists are so desperate to hype their agenda that a smoking gun would be produced everytime - if it exists."<br>
<P>I honestly have never supported Milosevic's massacre and had no idea that he'd be considered a right wing extremist. I've never heard him described as right wing and I can't find any hits on Google with key words "Milosevic right wing" that label him as right wing. The three words genrate hits but don't list the three words together. Let's look at Milosevic anyway. You are saying that he's a right wing extremist and that he needed no proof to massacre non-Serbian Yugoslavians.Call me stupid, I dont see the direct relationship.</P><br>

"There is always a smoking gun to justify war - and must be. War is that serious. Pearl Harbor. Invasion of S Korea. Invasion of Kuwait. When a smoking gun could not be found, then one had to be invented. Gulf of Tonkin. Standard to US principles. We don't go to war without a smoking gun. A new generation didn't learn from history?"<br>
<P>There should always proof to justify war, I agree, with a few exceptions. Most of the instances have obvious proof, Pearl Harbor, S Korea, and Kuwait. Ok, I'll agree with that too. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was totally bogus, yes, I agree.</P><br>
<P>Where was the proof that Germany was was such a threat in the second world war? Did Germany attack us? How about Italy? Were we not at war with these countries as well? There was no proof that they were an immediate threat to the US. Would you rather have not declared war on them as well and had Hitler develop the atomic bomb?</P><br>
<P>I'm not saying we should just blast Iraq. I think I've said that before. What I do think is reasonable is that Iraq be neutralized as a threat to the world. Is that just me, a right wing extremist's viewpoint? No. The US congress as well as the UN belive that too. I don't know what happened to you in your lifetime, maybe some VietNam experience, but you are so clearly overlooking many facts. I respect your opinion, escpecially since you are so emotional about it. It seems so obviously biased though, I struggle to follow much of the logic.</P>

"It is dangerous - albeit against American principles - to endorse war without a smoking gun. Too many only need emotion to justify their bias. Therefore invented is a new idea that the smoking gun is rare. Fiction."<br>
Of course, you are correct, as usual. Everyone knows Clinton was a right wing extremist, right?. His proof for promoting an attack on Iraq was his impeachment trial. Lets take a look.<br>
<a href="http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/dec1998/iraq-d17.shtml"> Military agression and poliitical diversion</a><br>


"Saddam is not a threat to the US and will not be until he is first a threat to his neighbors. None - not one - of his neighbors fear Saddam because, unlike bin Laden, Saddam is not attacking anyone - nor planning to attack anyone. Most every major US ally says Saddam is not a threat worthy of war. Those allies are the only signficant source of American intelligence. So where does George Jr get his incite? From people who now invent an idea that smoking guns are rare? This is right wing extremist hyperbole."<br>
<P>Saddam is not attacking anyone - nor planning to attack anyone?? Source please? Reference or any supporting documentation please.......even a name of a resource I can access online. So where does TW get his incite? This is getting old. Is this TW's opinion, as an expert? If you are an expert, it shouldn't be too hard to cite some additional sources.If your purpose here is to actually inform the opposition, which is the most effective method of changing opinion throughout, you might be more specific about your issues. There are several left leaning members here I can understand and respect. So far though, you just seem like some psuedo intellectual with a strong opinion, no supporting references, just strong opinion. If I am willing to spend the time to put together a reasonable argument, why can't you? <br>

"In February, George Jr decided to return Saddam as enemy #1. Of course. The George Jr administration contains hard right wing extremists. Many were the same people who screwed up during the George Sr administration - which is why Saddam is still there. They want revenge - and don't need no stinking smoking gun to justify their right to remove Saddam."<br>
<P>When you say the George Jr. administration, who exactly are you referring to? There are only a few people directly involved with both administrations. Am I missing something? Cheney, Powell? Who else? What right wing extremist are you talking about? </P><br>

"Both bin Laden and the Palestinians have been undesireable destractions to this George Jr administration that came into power making the attack on Saddam its number one priority - and made that declaration again, secretly, in February. Because of that priority, this adminstration has done everything possible to connect Saddam with both al Qaeda and with the Intafada II. The administration failed when moderates (therefore called lefty liberals by our extremist brethern) exposed admininstration lies repeatedly."<br>
<P>Where are you getting all this information? I might be inclined to agree with you but you really don't reveal any sources. To me, it seems like you are doing nothing but giving opinion. Are you directly involved with US intelligence, or the state department? If you have something for me to review, I'll look it over. As it stands now though, you are just spouting opinion.

"Dan Rather leans left? Of course. Everyone leans left of Slang. Many from my generation died uselessly because same extremists feared truth - and therefore labeld the NY Times, Washington Post, Daniel Ellsburg, Walter Conkite - and even 'Dan Rather' as pinko lefty liberals. Reported were the facts - including the Pentagon Papers that demonstrated no smoking gun could have existed. Pentagon Papers demonstrated how right wing extremists made American the enemy of another nation - a potential ally - because extremists need no smoking gun to justify their biases. So instead attack the messenger - the NY Times, Washington Post, Daniel Ellsburg - and Dan Rather. Today we know that people such as Dan Rather were on 'hate' lists because they only told the truth - at the expense of right wing extremist rhetoric."<br>
Let's take a look at what I said about Dan Rather.

Originally posted by slang
.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.

How could I possibly make such an outrageous claim? Dan Rather is a major reputable news anchor. Long before I noticed that there were many people that thought he was left leaning or biased, I noticed myself. That was before I became interested in politics. He seemd to favor one side of the news, certain people and ideas. Does he report the facts? Many times he does! The facts that bias the news to his position. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, to those that hold his same opinion. Hell, I even watch Rather sometimes. The important thing to remember is, he has an agenda. Am I the only one that believes this? No. The fact is that some Americans want Rather to interpret the daily events and editorialize, others dont. Why do you think Fox News is so popular? Does it spin right? Yes! Does that matter to many people, no. Why!? becuase they can turn on any network news channel and see the news spun to one degree or another. Is Fox news as big as the network news programs, no. Not yet. Are they influencial, you bet your Democratic voting card they are. Lets take a look at why. Here are some quotes from Dan that are opinion despite his claim of being fair and accurate <br>
RATHER: I think by any reasonable analysis that George Bush is off to a pretty good start with his presidency.
LETTERMAN: Is that right? You were pleased with how he handled the situation with China, you thought that went all right?
RATHER: I'm not go--well, I'm pausing only because you said the way he handled it. I'm not sure if he handled it.
LETTERMAN: The way it was handled. I'm sorry, OK the way it was handled.
RATHER: Because remember, you have Uncle Cheney, who runs an awful lot of things.
--Dan Rather on the Late Show with David Letterman, June 7, 2001.<br>
Is that a fact Dan, or a biased opinion? I dont care what your opinion is, just don't bullshit us by saying you are fair and accurate<br
"Past votes in Congress are prompting new questions about [Vice Presidential nominee] Dick Cheney and whether, as some say, they show he's too outside the American mainstream for voters in the year 2000."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, July 27, 2000. <br>
Outside the American mainstream like you Dan? Thanks for your opinion
After being sworn in as president, George W. Bush tried to build support for his policies in Congress:
"Power politics was part of the drill today at the White House, as President Bush invited top Democrats over to take each other's measure and talk about prospects for his Republican Right agenda in Congress. Beyond the pleasantries and pledges of cooperation afterward, Democrats made it clear that they will cooperate up to a point. One of those points: the Bush tax cut plan. Democrats continue to view it as, among other things, a giveaway to the wealthy that spends the budget surplus and leaves no money for such things as seniors--to pay for prescription drugs."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, January 24, 2001.<br>
Note: Rather only told viewers what Democrats thought of the tax plan. Thanks for your biased opinion Dan. <br>
On January 27, 1993, the Associated Press reported that nine of Bill Clinton's cabinet appointees were millionaires. On January 23, 2001, the AP reported that George W. Bush's nominees were "mostly millionaires." Dan Rather decided to follow the AP's lead in the Bush story, but not with the Clinton story. Rather never mentioned--throughout all eight years--that there were millionaires in Clinton's cabinets: Thanks for the spin Dan <br>
2001: "Financial disclosure reports today show many in the Bush Cabinet and other top posts have two things in common: they're multimillionaires and many hold stock in companies affected by federal action. Some examples: Commerce Secretary Donald Evans, at least $5 million in stock options in the oil and gas industry company that he headed; Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, at least $5 million in stock options from his old company, Alcoa; and Secretary of State Colin Powell, at least $24 and a half million in assets."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, January 23, 2001<br>
1993:"The Clinton Cabinet is installed minus an attorney general."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, January 22, 1993.<br>
"The Clinton Cabinet is now complete."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, March 11, 1993<br>

"Death penalty on trial. In Texas, his murder conviction disputed to the end, this is Gary Graham's execution night [...]
Good evening. An execution in Texas scheduled less than thirty minutes from now puts Governor George Bush in the spotlight and on the spot in the Campaign 2000 death penalty debate. Convicted of murder, Gary Graham is to die by injection amid questions about whether he or others on death rows nationwide may be dying for crimes they didn't commit. CBS's Bob McNamara is outside the Huntsville, Texas prison where the execution draws near. Bob?"
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, June 22, 2000.<br>
Note: There was no debate over the death penalty (except in the media) since both Bush and Gore supported it. Thanks for your opinion Dan<br><br>

In 1999, under pressure from labor union supporters, President Clinton signed regulations that tried to protect against repetitive motion injuries in the workplace. Business groups, though, didn't want it, and under pressure from business supporters, President Bush eliminated these regulations. In these two reports, Rather acknowledges only that Bush was "under pressure" from lobbyists, but not Clinton. Thanks for bringing us fair and accurate coverage Dan. <br>
2001: "Labor Secretary Elaine Chao today announced a series of hearings to decide what, if anything, the Bush Administration will do to protect workers from repetitive motion and stress injuries. Under pressure from his business supporters, President Bush scrapped workplace regulations issued by the Clinton Administration."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, June 7, 2001.<br>
1999: "After years of debate, delay and heavy opposition from big business lobbyists, the US government said today it will go ahead with new safety rules for the workplace; in particular, a proposed crackdown on the repetitive motions in factories and offices that may lead to aching backs, crippled hands and broken careers. CBS' Bob Orr has the facts."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, February 19, 1999.<br>
Is it any wonder this photo of W hit the news. Was it an accident that he was carrying this particular book so that it could be clearly seen as he held it?<br>
<br>
Ok, now let's see how balanced Rather was with Clinton.<br>

New president Bill Clinton congratulated Dan Rather on his on-air partnership with Connie Chung: "Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. President. If we could be one-one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been together in the White House, we'd take it right now and walk away winners."
--Dan Rather at a meeting for CBS affiliates, May 27, 1993. Quoted in Columbia Journalism Review Sept./Oct. 1993.<br>
Do you think Dan likes the Clintons? Do you think that admiration didn't bias his news reporting? Thanks for drooling all over the Clintons and showing what a lapdog you are Dan. <br>
C-SPAN Booknotes host Brian Lamb asked 60 Minutes executive producer Don Hewitt about interviewing Bill Clinton on his program:
BRIAN LAMB: If he called you today and said "I'd like to do 60 Minutes," how much time would you give him?
DON HEWITT: 60 minutes.
LAMB: Why?
HEWITT: Because I think that whatever he has to say--I tried. And we got nowhere. He's going to do something with somebody. I'm guessing he'll do it with Dan Rather. He--he likes Dan. And Dan likes him, I think.
--Don Hewitt on Booknotes,<br>
It's not just you that thinks that Don. We would all be wrong though because Dan's fair and accurate in reporting the facts.<br>
"Punishing the President. A court committee says Bill Clinton should lose his law license for allegedly giving false testimony under oath....
"Good evening. A committee of the Arkansas Supreme Court today recommended that President Clinton's law license be taken away because he allegedly gave false testimony about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. This disbarment has long been sought by Republicans and some other Clinton critics." "The President's lawyer made it clear tonight it will be challenged."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, May 22, 2000.
Note: Clinton was found in contempt of court by an Arkansas judge and did not appeal. He did not allegedly commit perjury. Thanks for your opinion Dan<br>
"...an Arkansas disciplinary panel's recommendation that President Clinton be disbarred. Does the panel's recommendation have its roots in partisan politics?"
--Dan Rather in an online preview of the night's Evening News, May 23, 2000.<br>
It may very well be politically motivated, but give us the facts on the Evening News please, not your opinion.<br>
"Senator, when you talk to other Senators, particularly older Senators - those who've been around for a bit - is or is there not some concern of the public, concern in some quarters, not all of them Democratic, that this is in fact a kind of effort at a quote 'coup,' that is you have a twice-elected, popularly elected President of the United States and so those that you mentioned in the Republican Party who dislike him and what he stands for, having been unable to beat him at the polls, have found another way to get him out of office."
--Dan Rather to former Senator Warren Rudman during CBS coverage of the Senate impeachment trial swearing in, January 7, 1999.<br>
<P> Let's take a look in the dictionary Dan</P>
<P>coup - a sudden and decisive change of government illegally or by force </P>
<P>Is that really what you meant Dan? Impeachment is a constitutional remedy. Let's take a look at the dictionary again.</P>
<P>impeachment - To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal. </P>
<P>There is a major difference between these 2 words Dan, it's your right, but you spin the news. <h2>We all know that.</h2></P><br>

[slang]

Bill Clinton apologized for his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky at a prayer breakfast of religious leaders:<br>
"The President of United States has given a solemn apology."
--Dan Rather on CBS's live coverage of the prayer breakfast, September 11, 1998.<br>
In the morning while on the scene, it's just an apology. <br>
"At an extraordinary White House prayer breakfast this morning the President went beyond his recent round of apologies. He went to acknowledging sin and expressing remorse and repentance."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, later that day, September 11, 1998. <br>
But on the Evening News, when people are paying attention, it becomes an extraordinary apology. Just a little help for a personal friend, no problem. Balanced? You decide.<br>
"Clinton's big jobs bill is still being held prisoner in Congress tonight."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, April 21, 1993.<br>
Do you mean it is not being voted on, or passed Dan? How unfair, the elected legislators held Clinton's bill "prisoner" by not passing it. Thanks again for your opinion. <br>
Bill Clinton's video tape of his testimony before the Paula Jones grand jury was made pubic to the nation:<br>
"Presidents have been in awkward spots before, but only recently could technology make witnesses of the entire nation, indeed, the entire world. And even when technology advanced in capability, it has usually retreated before any scenes so personal, so potentially embarrassing, and indeed, dangerous to the nation as this one."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, September 21, 1998.<br>
I'm sorry Dan, how is this dangerous to the nation? Give us some facts on this. Thanks again for your opinion <br>
"True or false, that part of the Republican agenda is now to try to paralyze the White House with so-called ethics inquiries?"
--Dan Rather to Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, Election Night, 1996.<br>
Hey Dan, what exactly are "so-called" ethics inquiries. Are they official congressional inquiries or not? I guess they're only official if they are inquiries against Republicans, thanks for your opinion Dan.<br>
"You've just been seeing and hearing live coverage of their initial presentation of the accusations -- mark the word please, the accusations -- against the [Democratic] Speaker of the House, Jim Wright."
--Dan Rather during live coverage of a House hearing, April 17, 1989.
Note: Wright resigned the next month after being charged with violating 69 House rules. I know, I know....fair and accurate, right (wink, wink). Thanks for your opinion Dan <br>
"He killed one person and wounded six others before taking his own life, all with a semi-automatic handgun that could not have been easier to buy. That...is bringing new calls for tougher handgun control laws."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, February 24, 1997. <br>
When was the last time you bought a handgun Dan? Was this an illegally owned handgun? Was this man a criminal? If we make the gun laws tougher, the violence will disappear. Like the drug laws that made the drugs disappear. Thanks for your opinion Dan.<br>
"President Clinton urged Congress to pass at least modest measures to try to reduce gun crimes." Chances of that happening are slim to none, but the President said it's high time for the Congress to do more to keep guns away from criminals and children."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, March 1, 2000.<br>
What is a moderate gun law and are there not thousands of Federal gun laws already on the books now? Thanks for bringing your vast knowledge of guns and gun laws to us Dan, and we really appreciate your opinion.<br>
"The shootings in Killeen were the latest tragedy highlighting the success of the gun lobby fighting gun control."
--Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, October 23, 1991.<br>
Note: A mass murder, according to Rather, highlights the success of the gun lobby. Thanks for making all responsible citizens that own firearms and that are NRA members appear to endorse this violence Dan, we appreciate your opinion. <br>
McCain had just won the New Hampshire primary:
"Do you expect the Bush campaign to come at you in a nasty way, now?"
--Dan Rather to John McCain on 60 Minutes II, February 1, 2000.<br>
Good choice of words Dan. Would that make Bush nasty? What the hell are you doing spinning the commentary for a <A href="http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/federal/votes/test4.asp?individual=senate&senator=6"> "gun nut"</A> anyway? Oh, that's right, he's running against the "evil" Bush. Thanks for trying to save us with your opinion Dan.<h3>So again I say, Dan's not a bad guy but he spins the news!!</h3><br>

"Oh how history repeats itself. The right wing extremist again claim no smoking gun is necessary to promote war. Those same extremists again label Dan Rather as liberal extremists. After all, if a political message is more important than reality, then one must attack people like Dan Rather. Extremists are more concerned with their ideas than the facts - smoking gun be damned. Facts become the enemy of extremists - as they did during the Cuban Missile Crisis - as they did during VietNam - and as they do concering Iraq. Fact remains - Saddam is not a threat to the US and is not even considered a threat to his neighbors. But he is a threat to the integrity of so many in George Jr's administration who should go down into history as having screwed up the Iraqi surrender in 1991." <br>

Is Tom Daschle a right wing extremist? How about Dick Gephardt? Are either of these men in George Jr's administration? Are they stupid? Are they credible? It looks like they feel proof is not required to prepare for a possible attack on Iraq.<br>
<a href="http://solaria.stanford.edu/journal/stuff/war.htm"> Senate approves Iraq resolution </a><br>
Bush gained the support of an important Senate ally on Thursday morning. Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced he would support the president on Iraq, saying it is important for the country "to speak with one voice at this critical moment." <br>
Daschle said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." However, he urged Bush to move "in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse." <br>
Yes Tom, that's why we now have the UN resolution. How many resolutions must we have approved to ensure Iraq conforms to the original UN demands that have been disregarded for years?<br>
"Most opposition came from Democrats, who were sharply divided on the issue. Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Missouri, said giving Bush the authority to attack Iraq could avert war by demonstrating the United States is willing to confront Saddam Hussein over his obligations to the United Nations. "<br>

[slang]

<h2>Great cartoons Tob!</h2>

[wolf]

Originally posted by Tobiasly
Oooh, look! I can post political cartoons too!

Awesomely clever toons, tobiasly! Loved 'em.

[wolf]

Slang,

As you pointed out elsewhere, yes, you do appear to have a lot of time on your hands ... but oh, my, the use to which you've put it.

There isn't a little clapping guy on the smilies list, otherwise one would appear here.

Oh, wait, there's this little dude ...

[tw]

Originally posted by Cairo
You really need to pick up a History book, and ...

Bin Laden's network is about successful Afgan fighters who told the Saudis that they could successfully beat Saddam Hussien. Bin Laden was rejected. That displeased him. Then when US troops did not leave Saudia Arabia as promised, bin Laden saw another evil force that must be expunged. Therein lies bin Laden's crusade against a power that had previously been a friend. You do read the news or just make up facts to fit a viewpoint. Was it also Frontline that also demonstrated how bin Laden obtained this mindset? Before 1990, US was considered a friend and an infidel by bin Laden. After 1991, the west was a power descrating the home of Islam's holiest sites.

We promised all Gulf countries that we would leave when done. Problem is that we screwed up the 1991 surrender - or does Cairo deny that. Then we did not leave. Are we there by invite? Not exactly. We never left and many of those countries did not uninvite us. Many, such as Saudia Arabia, don't like us there, but also are required to support current UN resolutions such as the no-fly-zone. But when Saddam would no longer fully cooperate with UN inspectors, Saudia Arabia, et al would not permit additional US troops back in. Only permitted was necessary for enforcing current UN resolutions. Those additional forces were not invited in blunt terms.

You can simplifiy the Gulf in terms of invites, verses who left, verses who is still fighting, verses whatever you want. The bottom line is that we promised to leave, we did not leave, and bin Laden considered that justification for his jihad.

Hysteria is what Cairo posts about Saddam. If left alone, Saddam may (or may not) eventually become a threat to his neighbors. And then a 'smoking gun' exists. With justification, after he attacks his neighbors, then the UN may be asked to clean up the mess. Attacking pre-maturely, without that 'smoking gun' only makes the US an enemy of all regional terrorist groups. Entering after Saddam really is a local threat makes the US as extremely popular in the region, even to some extremists, as the US was in 1990.

Preemptive military operations guarantees that the US will be targets of terrorists. Saddam has a long history of avoiding any confrontation with the US. Saddam is no threat nor wants to be regarded as a threat to the US. Saddam must become a threat to his neighbors before any extensive military action is justified. That is the morass that George Sr administration left us with.

Knowing this. Saddam is actively avoiding any reason make himself a target. No 'smoking gun' means no military invasion. Every honest politician knows that gun is a fundamental requirement. Only extremist would have a problem with fundamental fact - no smoking gun means no justification for invasion.

There are right wing dictators who promote war only because they fear a future war. Cairo's current viewpoint aligns with dicators - thinking that is both dangerous and contrary to American principles. Last time we used that thinking, we ended up in a useless war with N Viet Nam - because American right wing extremists perceived danger where danger need not exist.

One who thinks Saddam is acquiring nuclear weapons is one who promotes hysteria and advocated unprovoked war because of that hysteria. Show us the threat. No nation sees a threat that Cairo so expolates. Not one nation with spies in Iraq sees this big threat that Cairo fears. Not even Israel cites that threat. Cairo - where is your smoking gun to justify war - or do you advocate what dictator do - unprovoked war based upon a preceived fear?

If the low level confrontation in Iraq is sufficient to justify war, then we should have unilaterally attacked N Korea long ago. Using Cairo's logic, a unilateral attack on N Korea is more justified. At least the neighbors consider N Korea a threat. Fortunately people like Colin Powel are not as hysterical as Cairo meaning that extremists will not waste American lives like in Viet Nam. It was people who read history like Cairo that got us into that mess and wasted American lives. Cairo loves to shoot now and ask questions later making his thinking a major threat to Americans.

[Cairo]

tw,
Try to stay focused, Jughead, we were debating why US troops haven't left the Gulf!
You said the US promised to leave after the war, and we lied. So I explained that Saddam lied, and the Saudi Royals asked US to stay and protect them. To which you spin the topic to why we were there to begin with?... But since you brought it up, The decision that brought US troops to Saudi soil was made by the Saudi Government. How dare you interfere with a soverign Nations Right to run their own Country the way they see fit, and "Blame America" for their decision!!!! If our troops left Saudi Arabia today, the Royal family would be overthrown by tomorrow, so by tw logic, the Saudi Government wants to be overthrown, but the US troops won't leave!!!!
Tw's viewpoint is more in tune with the radical factions inside Saudi Arabia who don't like US troops there because they can't overtake the Royals unless we are gone! To align yourself with radicals, either you've been watching too much Al Jezeera or you are a terrorist. Which is it?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard your stance that you need to see another 3,000-30,000 innocents murdered. Are you on Al Qaeda's payroll?

I reject your "this is a new war" premise out of hand because it's not! Debate why the Gulf War is ongoing and America has every justifiable right to end it!

You say,"There are right wing dictators..."
HA! DemocRATS aren't right wing, the fate of Viet-Nam is purely political. DemocRATS declared the war "un-winable", so when Nixon was about to prove them wrong, they stopped him and proceeded to do what they do best...remain useless!!!
How about the Libby Hanoi Jane's? Baghdad McDermott's? Jimmy Carter's? Who buddy up to Communism and Dictatorships only to be used as the latest pawn in anti-American sentiment! Barbra Streisand is so much of an Anti-American Socialist, I believe she would go buddy up to Al Qaeda if she could find where they are...and she's Jewish! How messed up is that? Vile! Jackson,Sharpton, or Farrikkon(one of those idiots) tried to buddy up to Saddam already! Sheeesh!

Name a Country that doesn't think Saddam has WMD's.

N.Korea has never unleashed WMD's, nor have they publicly threatened to do so. The leaders of N.Korea do not parrot the actions of Hilter, have not executed a mini holocaust, and does not directly threaten America's best interest!
DemocRATS wasted American lives in Viet-Nam...they ALWAYS screw up war! That, is Historical FACT!

[Hubris Boy]

Originally posted by Cairo

DemocRATS wasted American lives in Viet-Nam...they ALWAYS screw up war! That, is Historical FACT!

I dunno... I always thought FDR did a pretty fair job helping to get rid of Hitler. And Truman did okay finishing off the Japanese.