Dan wrote:
It's not a "hypothesis". This is another false CBS news story that
they planned to run on October 31! This is old news - a year and a
half old, in fact. Why is this news now?

Because this time, CBS would have achieved the goals of their agenda
before the truth came out to discredit them.

They apparently don't care any more about even maintaining the appearance
of truth, accuracy or impartiality.

--
NBC News reported Monday night that those 380 tons of missing explosives were
already gone when U.S. troops arrived at the Al-Qaqaa weapons installation
in April 2003 - one day after Saddam's government was toppled.
New York Times 18 MONTHS LATE, CBS was saving it for election eve ambush!

"helmsman" wrote in message
news
Lying is not in the public interest.

Agreed. Lying to fabricate wars has never been in the public interest.
"Imminent threat"...that was a lie. "The most lethal weaopons ever devised
by mankind"...total nose-stretcher. "Mission Accomplished"...good god,
propaganda doesn't get any bigger!!

Dan wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 21:43:02 GMT, helmsman
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:56:36 -0500, clifto wrote:

Dan wrote:
It's not a "hypothesis". This is another false CBS news story that
they planned to run on October 31! This is old news - a year and a
half old, in fact. Why is this news now?

Because this time, CBS would have achieved the goals of their agenda
before the truth came out to discredit them.

They apparently don't care any more about even maintaining the appearance
of truth, accuracy or impartiality.

I really think after Bush wins again the FCC pulls there license. Lying is not in the
public interest.

That's a *great* idea!

Yeah, that and the January Surprise where he has John Fraud Kerry arrested for war crimes.

I'd volunteer for the firing squad.

dxAce
Michigan
USA



Dan

On 26 Oct 2004 17:42:15 -0500, Dan wrote:

That's Dan Rather all over. He has *hated* the Bushes ever since
George H. W. Bush embarrassed him when he made his famous remark to
Rather about him walking off the stage when Wimbledon ran late.


True. Dan Rather has it out for Bush. So what? What's your problem
with it? He's entitled to his opinion.

Mr William Everfart III wrote:

On 26 Oct 2004 17:42:15 -0500, Dan wrote:


That's Dan Rather all over. He has *hated* the Bushes ever since
George H. W. Bush embarrassed him when he made his famous remark to
Rather about him walking off the stage when Wimbledon ran late.



True. Dan Rather has it out for Bush. So what? What's your problem
with it? He's entitled to his opinion.

He is not entitled to use the CBS network as a news reporter to express
his personal opinions. He is supposed to report the news, not make it up.

"Sir Cumference" wrote in message
...


He is not entitled to use the CBS network as a news reporter to express
his personal opinions. He is supposed to report the news, not make it up.

Why would you expect him, or any of the networks to change their tune now?
They were all on board whipped up with war hysteria and spreading White
House lies like manure over the American heartland. None asked serious
questions. They were all White House stenographers before the war.

On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:59:49 -0600, Sir Cumference
wrote:

Mr William Everfart III wrote:

On 26 Oct 2004 17:42:15 -0500, Dan wrote:


That's Dan Rather all over. He has *hated* the Bushes ever since
George H. W. Bush embarrassed him when he made his famous remark to
Rather about him walking off the stage when Wimbledon ran late.



True. Dan Rather has it out for Bush. So what? What's your problem
with it? He's entitled to his opinion.

He is not entitled to use the CBS network as a news reporter to express
his personal opinions. He is supposed to report the news, not make it up.


He certainly is entitled.

Mr William Ev erhart III wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:59:49 -0600, Sir Cumference
wrote:


Mr William Everfart III wrote:


On 26 Oct 2004 17:42:15 -0500, Dan wrote:



That's Dan Rather all over. He has *hated* the Bushes ever since
George H. W. Bush embarrassed him when he made his famous remark to
Rather about him walking off the stage when Wimbledon ran late.



True. Dan Rather has it out for Bush. So what? What's your problem
with it? He's entitled to his opinion.

He is not entitled to use the CBS network as a news reporter to express
his personal opinions. He is supposed to report the news, not make it up.



He certainly is entitled.

If he identifies it as commentary, I'll agree - but when he presents
information with a specific slant to promote his objectives, it
shouldn't be called news.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:35:26 -0400, "Mark S. Holden"
wrote:

Mr William Ev erhart III wrote:
On Tue, 26 Oct 2004 20:59:49 -0600, Sir Cumference
wrote:


Mr William Everfart III wrote:


On 26 Oct 2004 17:42:15 -0500, Dan wrote:



That's Dan Rather all over. He has *hated* the Bushes ever since
George H. W. Bush embarrassed him when he made his famous remark to
Rather about him walking off the stage when Wimbledon ran late.



True. Dan Rather has it out for Bush. So what? What's your problem
with it? He's entitled to his opinion.

He is not entitled to use the CBS network as a news reporter to express
his personal opinions. He is supposed to report the news, not make it up.



He certainly is entitled.

If he identifies it as commentary, I'll agree - but when he presents
information with a specific slant to promote his objectives, it
shouldn't be called news.


I think you've given a fair and balanced answer. You're right.

Dan wrote:
When exactly was Dan Blather a "White House stenographer"? Other
than during the Clinton regime, that is.

What about during the Carter blight?

--
So those 380 tons of missing explosives were moved by Saddam before all
those expert inspectors noticed, eh?

No wonder twelve years of inspections found NOTHING.