Main > Everything Else
"Propagannon" confirmed : Fake reporter in WH press conferences.
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: Crazy Cooter on February 13, 2005, 11:44:46 am ---Did they believe the information available warranted military action?
That is the point. They did not, Bush did. He asked for help ("Coalition"), they said no. Were they 100% sure or 99%? Who cares? It was bogus info.
--- End quote ---
And you demonstrate yet again, that "Did they believe the information available warranted military action?" IS NOT, in fact, "the point".
You point to wondering about it warranting military action. If they wondered about military action, then they believed him to possess WMD's.
Then, you conclude that nobody cares about the percentage of "how sure were they", and then claim it was bogus info.
The POINT is that Bush acted on info that everyone believed to be true, while everyone who hates him wants to paint these actions as "Bush Lied".
Which is it CC? Everyone agreed on the information, or Bush lied? If everyone agreed on the information, then not only can you NOT say Bush lied, you also can't tell me it was "bogus info" that Bush somehow cooked up to sell this war.
Whether military action was warranted or not has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on the belief and intel by other countries that Sadaam possessed WMD's.
You don't even realize you're proving the very point I was telling Chad.
--- Quote ---And Drew, we should focus on the women and kids killed. How many of the 100,000+ civilians killed over there have been women and children? That's an important fact that shouldn't be swept under the table.
--- End quote ---
Then how about being at least a LITTLE honest and speak of ALL the people killed, instead of attempting the little guilt trip. You've NEVER seen me say we should sweep it under the table, but you HAVE seen Dexter bring this up as if we're ONLY killing women and children. Please. You know the point I'm making, and you know it's disingenuous to bring it up in that fashion, and is only done so to promote an agenda.
--- Quote ---In order to be a legitimate journalist, you should have SOMETHING. If not a degree, several years of experience in the field. These people should be seasoned professionals, (and even they can be stupid and not check facts).
--- End quote ---
The fact that even those seasoned professionals can be stupid and not check facts should demonstrate that the idea of a "legitimate" journalist is a myth. Several years of experience in the field doesn't make someone legitimate, it simply makes them seasoned. Perhaps seasoned in how to somewhat disguise the slant to their stories, perhaps seasoned in how to ensure their story recieves massive attention, perhaps seasoned in how to fake "credibility", but please don't try to sell me on how "putting in their time" somehow makes someone "legitimate". John Edwards was a more legitimate presidential candidate for the Democratic party, but according to your standard, they put forth the guy who was deemed more "legitimate", and used the guy they should have gone with, as VP, in order to prop up Kerry where his "legitimacy" was in question.
--- Quote ---BUT the fact is that he was granted access without proper credentials (I call that "planted"), and then used that position to further the administrations agenda by "steering" the direction of the news conferences away from important topics. THAT's where I object.
--- End quote ---
Thank goodness we have Helen Thomas to even it all out. She can speak for the goat-loving population of the world.
If one guy (and one incapable of maintaining anonymity, at that) was capable of steering the direction of an entire news conference away from important topics, then the bigger question you should be asking is why aren't these other reporters, sorry, "journalists", capable of sticking with the story they were searching for. Perhaps doing a little more of that "fact checking" you spoke of instead of being so servile might have given them the backbone they needed to ask the tough questions they were so dazzlingly talked out of by this Svengali.
I'll care about this guy when stories that leave NO DOUBT as to their intended purpose of trying to affect the opinion about a presidential candidate don't "just happen" to come out in the weeks before the election, or in the case of my state, the smear stories that come out the EVENING BEFORE AND MORNING OF the election. Please tell me that the YEAR of campaigning prior to the election wouldn't have brought out some DUI story, and that it somehow wouldn't have come out the DAY BEFORE the election.
Yeah, somehow it only happens on the right. ::)
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: mr.Curmudgeon on February 13, 2005, 12:53:27 pm ---
I'm not justifying his actions, I just don't think they warrant the amount of vile hatred spewed forth from your side. Talk about transparent. Your "moral outrage" was scripted by Ken Starr.
--- End quote ---
It probably never occurred to you to read what I had to say on this subject, but I'll say it again but I didn't think his actions warranted putting the country through all of that either. You can pin your "moral outrage" charge elsewhere. (btw, this is my "writing a letter"....see, if I don't believe or disagree with something, I'm direct enough to say it here, rather than tell everyone "I did something I can't prove, and I don't have the personal conviction to type it out loud here instead of avoiding it)
--- Quote ---And you'd have a lot more respectability if you'd actually address the issue at hand, and the topic of this thread, as opposed to making this about Dan Rather, Clinton and mr.Curmudgeon.
--- End quote ---
I have, and each of the things you brought up DO relate to this thread, as much as you'd like to think they don't. Your failure to get this worked up over Mr Rather relates to you, and the opinions you've expressed over this man directly equate to Dan Rather. Pointing out your outrage on one issue and your avoidance of an equal issue when it relates to others of your stripe is EXACTLY what is needed in this thread.
In case anyone missed it, I didn't bring up Clinton, Chad did, and assessing it to me probably has people questioning how you can keep facts straight. I was simply replying - now follow the order, since you can't seem to keep the facts straight, I'll repeat it for you - to a statement from Chad, fredster, and lastly, YOU. Also, Mr Rather was brought up by others before me, as they see the relevance as well.
Perhaps you'd like to re-read the thread. Assessing respectability is probably better left to someone who is able to follow the thread, and clearly, that rules you out.
--- Quote ---...completely avoid the topic, or like fredster, you just change it completely.
--- End quote ---
I did neither, but simply responded to that which has already been put forth....AND addressed the topic.
Again, I point to the Dan Rather thread and your very own attempts to do that which you charge of me here. In fact, you addressed the topic there less than I've done here. It's probably why you can't comprehend how THAT subject relates to THIS subject.
I purposefully stayed out of this topic this long because I KNEW you had no clue how the two subjects related to each other and that trying to demonstrate it to you would be fruitless, but you just have a knack for sucking people in with inane comments about what constitutes "legitimacy" and double-speak about "reading for yourself" while demonstrating that you won't when it comes to proving yourself wrong.
That this is a non-story with so little bearing on anything is lost on you. You should instead be initiating another "letter-writing" campaign to these nincompoop "legitimate journalists" who were so incapable of continuing their "hard-hitting" line of questioning because they were so overcome by this dime-store Svengali. If the rest of these guys were so "legitimate", why are you arguing (without realizing it, naturally) that, in fact, they AREN'T?
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: ChadTower on February 13, 2005, 01:53:21 pm ---Fact no one has mentioned about those Iraqi casualties:
A large % of them were killed by Iraqis.
--- End quote ---
100%
(see? I can pull a DanJeff RatherGannon too! Soon I'll have my very own "legitimate" N.Y. Times press credentials! ;D)
Crazy Cooter:
Bush acted on information he thought was true.
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote from: DrewKaree on February 13, 2005, 07:23:07 pm ---In case anyone missed it, I didn't bring up Clinton, Chad did, and assessing it to me probably has people questioning how you can keep facts straight. I was simply replying - now follow the order, since you can't seem to keep the facts straight, I'll repeat it for you - to a statement from Chad, fredster, and lastly, YOU. Also, Mr Rather was brought up by others before me, as they see the relevance as well.
--- End quote ---
Meeeooowwrrr!!! Catty much? ...and Chad has accused me of being condescending?...it's getting ridiculous. I never suggested you started on the Clinton excuse...but I did address your quote "You seem to think ALL that was at issue with Clinton was a blow job." Don't lecture me on reading comprehension if you can't follow the thread yourself.
--- Quote ---Perhaps you'd like to re-read the thread. Assessing respectability is probably better left to someone who is able to follow the thread, and clearly, that rules you out.
--- End quote ---
You must really be worked into a lather about this? So far you've said next to *nothing* about the facts regarding "Gannon's" proven illegitimacy, connections to right-wing conservative groups associated w/ Bush Co., and/or his mysterious presence in the White House, other than defending his lack of journalism background with some lame attempt at bagging on Rather. I guess defending the criminals in the White House is starting to wear on you.
--- Quote ---It's probably why you can't comprehend how THAT subject relates to THIS subject.
--- End quote ---
I love how disagreeing w/ you means I somehow don't comprehend you and your ultimate wisdom. Dude, I get what your saying, and I don't believe it relates. Dan Rather is only relevant to you because it allows you some level of moral justification for "Gannon's" presence , as you feel it somehow offsets what you see as "liberal bias" in the media. It's classic "two wrongs make a right." You can come down from the pedestal now.
--- Quote ---I purposefully stayed out of this topic this long because I KNEW you had no clue how the two subjects related to each other and that trying to demonstrate it to you would be fruitless, but you just have a knack for sucking people in with inane comments about what constitutes "legitimacy" and double-speak about "reading for yourself" while demonstrating that you won't when it comes to proving yourself wrong.
--- End quote ---
WAAAAAAAAH!!!! Jesus. It's fruitless because I ain't buying it. It's a lame-ass red herring. Let me clear something up for you re: my "outrage"...Dan Rather's "MemoGate" was the lead story on EVERY FRIGGIN news station for 3 weeks straight. An investigation was being launched into the memos authenticity before his 60-minutes piece was even finished. He no longer works for CBS, four people have been fired as well, everyone but you has moved on. I wasn't going to march outside CBS news since the wingnuts were already climbing over each other to get there. I said Rather got what he deserved, and I feel he's done more damage than good. "GannonGate", on the other hand, is an embarrassment to journalists across the board, and as such, his story has received 1-2% (Guessing here) of the coverage "Memogate" had in the SCLM (So-Called Liberal Media). The right hates the story because it exposes the fallacy of the "liberal media." When the leader of the free world and his spokespeople can call on fabricated journalists in order to spread administration propaganda, you sound kinda' nutty, cryin' about liberal bias. Nobody is "legitmate" in your eyes if they question the President. It's like Nazi Germany, only without all the cool arm-bands.
--- Quote ---If one guy (and one incapable of maintaining anonymity, at that) was capable of steering the direction of an entire news conference away from important topics, then the bigger question you should be asking is why aren't these other reporters, sorry, "journalists", capable of sticking with the story they were searching for.
--- End quote ---
Just so you know, this is what is called a "Straw man" fallacy. It doesn't address the existence of "Gannon", nor his presence in the WH. It also makes a nice side dish to your Red Herring argument about Dan Rather. Other journalists and their lack of focus has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the WH aided and abetted a fraud.
--- Quote ---That this is a non-story with so little bearing on anything is lost on you. You should instead be initiating another "letter-writing" campaign to these nincompoop "legitimate journalists" who were so incapable of continuing their "hard-hitting" line of questioning because they were so overcome by this dime-store Svengali. If the rest of these guys were so "legitimate", why are you arguing (without realizing it, naturally) that, in fact, they AREN'T?
--- End quote ---
Nothing but op-ed and more straw men. I have plenty of beef with the kowtowing journalists present in the WH press corp, myself. It still doesn't justify "Gannon's" existence in the WH. Sorry. "Gannon" and "bad journalists" are not the same thing. "Gannon" was a phony plant used to misdirect press conferences and change the line of questioning, because this administration is too chicken-$hit to answer to the public. Bad journalists are people that just don't ask good questions, or inject their own bias into a story. It's not the same as a fabricated "journalist" being used to spread blatant propaganda coming from within the administration itself.
As much as your side seems to hate Helen Thomas (contrary to your whining up-thread about weak-kneed journalists not being able to control the questioning in the WH, I can only IMAGINE the foam spewing from your frothing jowls were one to actually offer a "hard-hitting" direct line of questioning to the WH)...at least Helen Thomas is her real name. Conservatives are cowards.
Sincerely,
"Dr.C"
P.S. DAN RATHER'S MEMOGATE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "GANNON".