CBS Apologizes Over Bush Guard Duty Memos

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Atoyot\";p=\"40783)</div>

No

 

Let's not forget that this same secretary who said that she believed that these particular documents were faked also vouched for the very accuracy of what was in those documents.

In other words, Killian did believe that Bush was getting special treatment and that he, Killian, was upset by it.

She also said that she did in fact type hand written notes from Killian to the same affect as these documents, just not these documents.

It suggests that the original documents were lost (purged?) and someone tried to re-create them.

Re-creating them was wrong and CBS will pay. But the gist of the story is correct.


Be that as it may, has anyone figured out why we are in Iraq when we are supposed to fighting against terrorism?

The evidence was strong in March of 2003 before this war started that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and that he was a minor player in world terrorism by 2001. The evidence to that effect has now become incontravertible to that effect. (The 9/11 report said it and Colin Powell said it and all the British government studies have said it.)

As far as I'm concerned, Bush dodging the draft 30 years ago might say something about his character 30 years ago. But what he did in March of 2003 speaks volumes louder than that.

I do hope that things settle down in Iraq so this country can get back to fighting the war we supposedly started on 9/11. That real war has been on hold long enough.

 

*raises hand*
"Call on me, please teacher! Call on me!"

That's an easy one. Oil! As for dodging the draft, that's the only good and right and proper thing GW has ever done. The funny thing (in a depressing sort of way) about this election, is that the war-mongers are all voting for the draft-dodger, and the peaceniks are mostly voting for the war hero.

 

Daniel,

I think that a very strong case can be made that oil was among the primary reasons we invaded Iraq. The others are things like vengence and diversion. Every single other justification collapses upon scrutiny. But oil, vengence and diversion are the only ones that fail to collapse.

However, my question was directed to those that seem to support Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

____________________

The arguments this administration has used so far:

WMD = collapsed. However, you can't blame Bush for this one. Most of the world thought he had WMD.

WMD that are an imminent threat to the USA = collapsed and this one you CAN blame on Bush. No other country except Blair thought there was anything more than a theoretical threat from Sadam and history proved them right.

ties to Al Qaida = collapsed (And the arguments before the invasion were just as weak. And now we know there was absolutely no working connection notwithstanding Cheney's very careful language to try to keep that connection alive without actually lying.)

Connection to terrorism = by 2001 collapsed. (During the Reagan and Bush I years Saddam's connection to terrorism was very strong but he was our ally then. His connection to terrorism in the 90's progressively weakened so by 2001 was all but collapsed.)

"Freedom and liberty" = collapsed because in order to have internal consistency this would have to be a consistent reason. During the 2000 debates, Bush specifically made it clear that war should only be fought for very clear threats to the USA. So using this argument now can only be understood in the context of opportunism. (Or is Bush a flip flopper?)

American safety = collapsed and was extremely weak prior to our invasion.


Saddam Hussien was a horrible dictator. But can you imagine if back in March of 2003 Bush told the American people that the only reason we were invading Iraq was because he was so horrible?

Franco was a horrible dictator in Spain in 1941 What do you think the American people would have said if after the Japanese attack, FDR went and attacked Spain?

 

Bush avoided going to Vietman by getting into the National Guard, which in those days was never used overseas. He never could have gotten in because the National Guard had a long waiting list of young men trying to get in for the same reason. But GW's daddy was a very powerful man even back then, and got him in ahead of others, who by rights should have gotten in before him.

Then, having used his daddy's influence to avoid the Army, GW went AWOL and did not even fulfill his National Guard obligations. Again, his daddy covered it up and got him an honorable discharge.

I support 100% GW's decision not to go to Vietnam. I oppose his decision to send Americans into an equally-useless war.

The trade in oil as an essential international commodity, is as important as is the actual supply of oil to any given country. By controlling a significant portion of the world's oil supply, the U.S. would be in a position to put significant pressure on countries that need it, such as Japan. Oil becomes a weapon in the trade wars.

Additionally, the U.S. benefits tremendously from the fact that oil is traded in dollars. This means that countries that want to buy oil have to have dollars. Since it costs the U.S. nothing to print a dollar, the demand for dollars to mediate the international trade in such a high-volume commodity is a large monetary free ride for the U.S. The Europeans would like the world to trade oil in euros, or at least to trade a portion of the world's oil in euros. Saddam Hussein hated the U.S. enough that he was very friendly toward the idea of selling his oil for euros. Reportedly, he was considering making the switch, and this was one reason (out of many) why GW wanted him out.

Thus oil comes in to this war in at least two separate ways: control of the trade in a commodity, and control of the currency used to trade that commodity.

The worst thing that can happen to a small country is to have a resource that a rich country wants, or that it wants to control.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Atoyot\";p=\"40879)</div>

hmmm. that doesnt make more sense to me. texas doesnt have enough oil to supply the us. a very tight supply that cannot meet demands would tighten up the market, squeeze small marginal companies out of business and be a financial disaster and i assume by your location that you probably know that a financial disaster for the us means that texas oil interests will suffer greatly.

fact is, texas gets rich by supplying its little fraction of the oil picture. but they know that if a recession hits the us, it will be felt by the little people in texas first. ya little people thats right. you may be big compared to anyone else, but in the oil game, you will be the first to go when problem arise and bush knows it. so it is imperative that he keep oil high but affordable. over 1000 small oil companies in TX, OK and LA went out of business during the last mini oil crisis (that includes bush's company...) and there are many more that are vunerable now.

right now he is getting close to a major problem and he knows it that is why he is pressuring opec to loosen up supplies. this has obviously not been widely publicized for fear of people yelling SCAM!! but you can bet your bottom dollar that that is what bush is really concerned about.

everything he has done points to his allegience to the "good ole boy" network of small independent oil drillers in his hometown backyard. his push to open up the rest of alaska for drilling plus trying to get permission to reopen marginal wells smacks of back slapping favoritism.

if you survive by working in the oil industry and over 3 million people do, then im sure you think bush has the holier than thou agenda for going over to save the people of iraq. i however must look at what bush has done and not what he says he is going to do. his domestic policy reminds me of the treatment of the orphans in the movie "Oliver" barely acknowledged, obviously an interuption in his agenda, and pushed to the side once again, only brought out when brownie points are necessary or when he thinks he needs to throw the american public a bone...

 

Iraq might have as much oil reserves as Saudi Arabia. They almost certainly have as much oil reserves as the USA. Those are the big 3 in reserves.

If an extremely Pro American country takes hold in Iraq, American corporations stand to make billions.

If Bush could get the price of oil back down to $15 like it was before this mess started, just think all the Hummers that could be sold! Neocon heaven! (I'm oversimplyfying, but you get the idea.)

And had things gone right, it only would have taken about 200 American boys and girls and 10,000 Iraqis. Now we have passed about 1100 coalition members and 12,000 Iraqis, with no end in sight. I suspect that that is still a small price to pay for lots of Hummers, from the perspective of the neocons.

 

keep in mind that on May 1, 2004 when bush announced that the war in iraq was over (that has been proven to be a bald-faced lie... guess his intel failed again...)

the death toll was 583. we will soon double that total. i heard that civilians are no longer added to the official US death tolls... is that correct? the civilian count should be getting up there. it seems someone's head is being cut off nearly every day lately.

 

Daniel - Iraq did switch to selling oil in euros in 2000. Coincidentally, they are now selling oil in dollars again. What with being a new "democratic" Iraq, I'm sure that was with no prompting from their liberators.

 

The Commander in Chief must go.

The Daily Show is a comedy show. But their ability to get right to the heart of issues, with humor, is better than the rest of American media put together. Here's a great example.


JON STEWART: Well Stephen, what do you think is going to happen now at CBS News?

STEPHEN COLBERT, Daily Show Senior Media Correspondent: Jon, there's got to be some accountability. Dan Rather is the head, the commander in chief if you will of his organization. He's someone in the ultimate position of power who made a harmful decision based upon questionable evidence. Then, to make things worse, he stubbornly refused to admit his mistake, choosing instead to stay the course and essentially occupy this story for too long. This man has got to go!

STEWART: Uh ... we're talking about Dan Rather...?

COLBERT: Yes Jon, Dan Rather. CBS is in chaos, it's unsafe, riven by internal rivalries. If you ask me, respected, reputable outsiders need to be brought in to help the rebuilding effort.

STEWART: ... at CBS News?

COLBERT: Yeah, at CBS news! What possible other unrelated situation could my words be equally applicable to?! Now people need to be held accountable. The commander in chief, the vice president, the secretary of defense, the national security adviser -- everyone at CBS News needs to go! Jon, I can tell you, Walter Cronkite is rolling over in his grave.

COLBERT: Walter Cronkite is still alive.

STEWART: Not according to my sources ... at CBS News.

 

That episode of Daily Show was probably their best work in the last couple weeks. Since the conventions, Jon Stewart has seemed increasingly critical and pissed off, and not as funny as usual.

In addition to being funny as hell, he's absolutely right. Everyone is in an uproar over CBS failing to check its sources. Yet the Bush administration based its case to go to war on equally discredited sources (including one code-named Curveball). If Dan Rather should resign over this, why hasn't a single senior administration official offered their resignation yet?

 

Sun Tzu

You know, now that you mention it, I think Jon has been a bit off his game lately and your insight as to the reason seems to fit.

And in regard to resignations over this war, the most logical one is the commander in chief.

 

Same situation over here. We lost the director-general and chairman over the BBC, basically for their backing of a report that the government made WMD claims that they knew weren't true, and the editor of The Mirror newspaper resigned after it published photos of British troops abusing Iraqi prisoners which turned out to be fakes. Although they were recreations of real events for which soldiers were later charged. Sigh.

Noone in the government has resigned, apart from those who resigned in protest beforehand, like Robin Cook (leader of the House, and former Foreign Secretary).

 

A man who achieves power through lies, fraud, and corruption is not going to resign just because he is incompetent and his lies have been found out.

It is our job, as citizens, if we are not satisfied with the criminals who are in power, to replace them with different criminals. Assuming you care which pack of criminals runs the government.

 

Bush was in the Air National Guard not the National Guard.

The ANG and specifically the 147th FIG of the Texas ANG was rotated into Viet Nam from 1968 - 1970 under the Palace Alert program and destinguished itself.

Please don't demean the service provided by the components of the Guard.