Union Thugs are being Identified Check it out

[Seawytch]

The MSM ius clearly dominated by liberal bias. And as such, the news is not reported in it's factual form. It is "presented".
There is a show on HBO called "The Newsroom".. In it, the new producer insisted the news be reported without altering, without including a narrative bias.
The upper level management argued against this saying that people were not intelligent enough to understand what it was they were watching. Other issues would be that the viewers would get bored and tune out.
They had a point. There are just too many people who need their news spoon fed as though they were children. Years ago, someone mentioned Americans get their news in 10 second soundbites because that was the length of their attention span.
Sadly, this appears to be true.
We are a nation of uninformed people who don't bother to research anything.

Anyone who bothered to research President Bushes(43) history with the reserves knows the story. This incident with Dan Rather showed a clear case of Bias for President Bushes re-election in '04 by the MSM.

You are in the running for "most irrational USMB poster of 2012".

No fear. Your title isn't in jeopardy.

 

[Oldstyle]

Three CBS executives and the 60 Minutes producer who came up with the fabricated documents were all fired for their parts in this scandal. Dan Rather SHOULD have been fired as well but he was allowed to "step down". There is a HUGE difference between unknowingly acting on bad information and fabricating bad information. I'm amused by your claim that CBS was merely "reporting" the news. Nothing could be further from the truth. CBS was making a concerted effort to get a certain narrative across...despite the fact that they didn't HAVE proof that narrative was accurate. That ISN'T reporting. That's propagandizing.

The MSM ius clearly dominated by liberal bias. And as such, the news is not reported in it's factual form. It is "presented".
There is a show on HBO called "The Newsroom".. In it, the new producer insisted the news be reported without altering, without including a narrative bias.
The upper level management argued against this saying that people were not intelligent enough to understand what it was they were watching. Other issues would be that the viewers would get bored and tune out.
They had a point. There are just too many people who need their news spoon fed as though they were children. Years ago, someone mentioned Americans get their news in 10 second soundbites because that was the length of their attention span.
Sadly, this appears to be true.
We are a nation of uninformed people who don't bother to research anything.

Anyone who bothered to research President Bushes(43) history with the reserves knows the story. This incident with Dan Rather showed a clear case of Bias for President Bushes re-election in '04 by the MSM.

Did you just try to make an argument that the main stream media had a clear case of bias FOR George W. Bush? Seriously? I mean is that supposed to be a put on?

 

[BlindBoo]

The MSM ius clearly dominated by liberal bias. And as such, the news is not reported in it's factual form. It is "presented".
There is a show on HBO called "The Newsroom".. In it, the new producer insisted the news be reported without altering, without including a narrative bias.
The upper level management argued against this saying that people were not intelligent enough to understand what it was they were watching. Other issues would be that the viewers would get bored and tune out.
They had a point. There are just too many people who need their news spoon fed as though they were children. Years ago, someone mentioned Americans get their news in 10 second soundbites because that was the length of their attention span.
Sadly, this appears to be true.
We are a nation of uninformed people who don't bother to research anything.

Anyone who bothered to research President Bushes(43) history with the reserves knows the story. This incident with Dan Rather showed a clear case of Bias for President Bushes re-election in '04 by the MSM.

Did you just try to make an argument that the main stream media had a clear case of bias FOR George W. Bush? Seriously? I mean is that supposed to be a put on?

Why do you think they led the American public away from the story of Bushes record in the reserves and substituted the dumb-ass Dan forgery story. Who cares if President had also used forged documents in the push for the Iraq invasion and occupation, that only cost a few thousand US lives......I mean this is the same public where 70% believed Sadddam was behind 9-11 (in March of 2003) so it's not too hard to fool most.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Anyone who bothered to research President Bushes(43) history with the reserves knows the story. This incident with Dan Rather showed a clear case of Bias for President Bushes re-election in '04 by the MSM.

You are in the running for "most irrational USMB poster of 2012".

No fear. Your title isn't in jeopardy.

I have concluded that you are 12 years old.
Have you found your bathroom yet?

 

[Seawytch]

You are in the running for "most irrational USMB poster of 2012".

No fear. Your title isn't in jeopardy.

I have concluded that you are 12 years old.
Have you found your bathroom yet?

I didn't know I couldn't find a bathroom.

Funny that you conclude I'm 12 for using your own "insult" against you. Are you saying you're 12?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Anyone who bothered to research President Bushes(43) history with the reserves knows the story. This incident with Dan Rather showed a clear case of Bias for President Bushes re-election in '04 by the MSM.

Did you just try to make an argument that the main stream media had a clear case of bias FOR George W. Bush? Seriously? I mean is that supposed to be a put on?

Why do you think they led the American public away from the story of Bushes record in the reserves and substituted the dumb-ass Dan forgery story. Who cares if President had also used forged documents in the push for the Iraq invasion and occupation, that only cost a few thousand US lives......I mean this is the same public where 70% believed Sadddam was behind 9-11 (in March of 2003) so it's not too hard to fool most.

From which liberal blog did you garner this nonsense.
Oh and you can shit can the 9/11 conspiracy shit. It's well, SHIT.
Amazing how everything stated about libs is true. When one of them fucks up, other libs circle the wagons.
When Rather's story turned out to be total bullshit, CBS did not fire Rather. Nooooooo They fired a few producers and one higher ranking person at CBS News. Then the flunkies in the MSM made up some vacuous award and gave it to Rather.
Fast forward to today....The entire country, well at least the part that pays attention knows the MSM carries the water for liberals and the democrat party.
Find one issue on which on which the MSM called out Obama.
I will save you the effort. You WON'T!
The MSM coddles, protects, pets and worships Obama.
All of the White Press briefings are filled with softball questions. Why? Because the White House has standing orders to pull White House media credentials from anyone who dares to ask questions that may put Obama in a bad light.
Don't believe me? Think I made it up? Ok, can you provide a video of a White House press conference where someone in the press dared to ask a tough question?
Good luck.
Obama's press conferences are him making a campaign speech or just telling the press how it is. They are not permitted to ask questions not pre approved by the White House Press Sec'y....Don't believe me? Think I am making this up? Good. Go find video where Obama was asked a tough question that he answered truthfully honestly and directly without giving the appearance he was pissed off about the question.
Good luck.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The truth is that CBS report on Bush and the National Guard should have been broadcast without the controversial memos. And if it had been, the results would have been exactly the same. Meaning, the documents were irrelevant because they provided texture (the supposed frustration of Bush's commander), not new facts about Bush's service. Yet journalists pretend the memos are the National Guard story and that without them, questions about Bush's military dodge disappear. Dan took one so the story of Bushes National Gaurd service (or lack thereof) would be obfusticated.

Hey genius. Rather fabricated the story. Period. And he got canned.

He didn't fabricate the story, he used poorly vetted information.

See, you cannot bring yourself to admit someone on your side did something wrong.
Rather fabricated the story. Case fucking closed.
You libs are just full of lame ass excuses.
Next time a family member catches you making up a story go ahead use that excuse. "I used poorly vetted information"...See how far you get with that horseshit.
Hey sunshine, the only thing poorly vetted is not a thing. It's a person. One Barack Hussein Obama. The ONLY president to serve without being vetted.

 

[Seawytch]

Hey genius. Rather fabricated the story. Period. And he got canned.

He didn't fabricate the story, he used poorly vetted information.

See, you cannot bring yourself to admit someone on your side did something wrong.
Rather fabricated the story. Case fucking closed.
You libs are just full of lame ass excuses.
Next time a family member catches you making up a story go ahead use that excuse. "I used poorly vetted information"...See how far you get with that horseshit.
Hey sunshine, the only thing poorly vetted is not a thing. It's a person. One Barack Hussein Obama. The ONLY president to serve without being vetted.

It wasn't fabricated by Rather, but do continue to make an ass of yourself.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The truth is that CBS report on Bush and the National Guard should have been broadcast without the controversial memos. And if it had been, the results would have been exactly the same. Meaning, the documents were irrelevant because they provided texture (the supposed frustration of Bush's commander), not new facts about Bush's service. Yet journalists pretend the memos are the National Guard story and that without them, questions about Bush's military dodge disappear. Dan took one so the story of Bushes National Gaurd service (or lack thereof) would be obfusticated.

Hey genius. Rather fabricated the story. Period. And he got canned.

You don't even know what document(s) were allegedly forged do you?

However, thanks for the fine example of what 'Dumbed Down' truly means.

I don't give a shit what documents were forged. That is irrelevant. Rather wanted to do a hatchet job on Bush 43. He struggled to find things to fulfill is goal. He could not find anything credible, so winged it . He then used that information to fabricate the story.
HE LIED. Period.
You can make excuses and go on through your life lying to yourself all you like. It doesn't change the facts.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No fear. Your title isn't in jeopardy.

I have concluded that you are 12 years old.
Have you found your bathroom yet?

I didn't know I couldn't find a bathroom.

Funny that you conclude I'm 12 for using your own "insult" against you. Are you saying you're 12?

See. That describes the depth of your stupidity. You freely admit "you did not know".
Listen Sister Mary Elephant, I can go at this all day. It does not get any better for you. You cannot win.

 

[CrotchetyGeezer]

Anyone who bothered to research President Bushes(43) history with the reserves knows the story. This incident with Dan Rather showed a clear case of Bias for President Bushes re-election in '04 by the MSM.

Did you just try to make an argument that the main stream media had a clear case of bias FOR George W. Bush? Seriously? I mean is that supposed to be a put on?

Why do you think they led the American public away from the story of Bushes record in the reserves and substituted the dumb-ass Dan forgery story. Who cares if President had also used forged documents in the push for the Iraq invasion and occupation, that only cost a few thousand US lives......I mean this is the same public where 70% believed Sadddam was behind 9-11 (in March of 2003) so it's not too hard to fool most.

"Who cares if President had also used forged documents in the push for the Iraq invasion and occupation"

Only one problem with your comparison. Rather knew the documents he used were bunk and used them anyway.

 

[Seawytch]

I have concluded that you are 12 years old.
Have you found your bathroom yet?

I didn't know I couldn't find a bathroom.

Funny that you conclude I'm 12 for using your own "insult" against you. Are you saying you're 12?

See. That describes the depth of your stupidity. You freely admit "you did not know".
Listen Sister Mary Elephant, I can go at this all day. It does not get any better for you. You cannot win.

Yes, I freely admit I didn't know I had a problem finding a bathroom until you told me I did. Thanks!

Win what?

 

[Seawytch]

Did you just try to make an argument that the main stream media had a clear case of bias FOR George W. Bush? Seriously? I mean is that supposed to be a put on?

Why do you think they led the American public away from the story of Bushes record in the reserves and substituted the dumb-ass Dan forgery story. Who cares if President had also used forged documents in the push for the Iraq invasion and occupation, that only cost a few thousand US lives......I mean this is the same public where 70% believed Sadddam was behind 9-11 (in March of 2003) so it's not too hard to fool most.

"Who cares if President had also used forged documents in the push for the Iraq invasion and occupation"

Only one problem with your comparison. Rather knew the documents he used were bunk and used them anyway.

No, he didn't know they were "bunk" when he made the report. They did not do enough research, but at the time of the report, thought they were genuine.

 

[bripat9643]

No, he didn't know they were "bunk" when he made the report.

Only the terminally gullible believe that.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why do you think they led the American public away from the story of Bushes record in the reserves and substituted the dumb-ass Dan forgery story. Who cares if President had also used forged documents in the push for the Iraq invasion and occupation, that only cost a few thousand US lives......I mean this is the same public where 70% believed Sadddam was behind 9-11 (in March of 2003) so it's not too hard to fool most.

"Who cares if President had also used forged documents in the push for the Iraq invasion and occupation"

Only one problem with your comparison. Rather knew the documents he used were bunk and used them anyway.

No, he didn't know they were "bunk" when he made the report. They did not do enough research, but at the time of the report, thought they were genuine.

Typical. When the press fucks up, they "stand behind their story". In the mean time, even if the story is false, press shield laws, allow these pricks to make up shit as they go while people's live are destroyed.
Rather got off easy. He should have had his assets drained to ZERO in civil suit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why do you think they led the American public away from the story of Bushes record in the reserves and substituted the dumb-ass Dan forgery story. Who cares if President had also used forged documents in the push for the Iraq invasion and occupation, that only cost a few thousand US lives......I mean this is the same public where 70% believed Sadddam was behind 9-11 (in March of 2003) so it's not too hard to fool most.

"Who cares if President had also used forged documents in the push for the Iraq invasion and occupation"

Only one problem with your comparison. Rather knew the documents he used were bunk and used them anyway.

No, he didn't know they were "bunk" when he made the report. They did not do enough research, but at the time of the report, thought they were genuine.

Please, with the idiotic excuses.

 

[BlindBoo]

Did you just try to make an argument that the main stream media had a clear case of bias FOR George W. Bush? Seriously? I mean is that supposed to be a put on?

Why do you think they led the American public away from the story of Bushes record in the reserves and substituted the dumb-ass Dan forgery story. Who cares if President had also used forged documents in the push for the Iraq invasion and occupation, that only cost a few thousand US lives......I mean this is the same public where 70% believed Sadddam was behind 9-11 (in March of 2003) so it's not too hard to fool most.

"Who cares if President had also used forged documents in the push for the Iraq invasion and occupation"

Only one problem with your comparison. Rather knew the documents he used were bunk and used them anyway.

portland imc - 2003.06.21 - Bush Knew Iraq Uranium Documents Forged; Lied Anyway

In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Bush introduced a new piece of evidence to show that Iraq was developing a nuclear arms program: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. ... Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

One year earlier, Cheney's office had received from the British, via the Italians, documents purporting to show Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger. Cheney had given the information to the CIA, which in turn asked a prominent diplomat, who had served as ambassador to three African countries, to investigate. He returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries. The CIA circulated the ambassador's report to the vice president's office, the ambassador confirms to TNR. But, after a British dossier was released in September detailing the purported uranium purchase, administration officials began citing it anyway, culminating in its inclusion in the State of the Union. "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," the former ambassador tells TNR. "They were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more persuasive."

 

[S.J.]

Why do you think they led the American public away from the story of Bushes record in the reserves and substituted the dumb-ass Dan forgery story. Who cares if President had also used forged documents in the push for the Iraq invasion and occupation, that only cost a few thousand US lives......I mean this is the same public where 70% believed Sadddam was behind 9-11 (in March of 2003) so it's not too hard to fool most.

"Who cares if President had also used forged documents in the push for the Iraq invasion and occupation"

Only one problem with your comparison. Rather knew the documents he used were bunk and used them anyway.

portland imc - 2003.06.21 - Bush Knew Iraq Uranium Documents Forged; Lied Anyway

In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Bush introduced a new piece of evidence to show that Iraq was developing a nuclear arms program: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. ... Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

One year earlier, Cheney's office had received from the British, via the Italians, documents purporting to show Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger. Cheney had given the information to the CIA, which in turn asked a prominent diplomat, who had served as ambassador to three African countries, to investigate. He returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries. The CIA circulated the ambassador's report to the vice president's office, the ambassador confirms to TNR. But, after a British dossier was released in September detailing the purported uranium purchase, administration officials began citing it anyway, culminating in its inclusion in the State of the Union. "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," the former ambassador tells TNR. "They were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more persuasive."

Ah, the old "I'm losing the argument so I'll change the subject". Good move.

 

[bripat9643]

Why do you think they led the American public away from the story of Bushes record in the reserves and substituted the dumb-ass Dan forgery story. Who cares if President had also used forged documents in the push for the Iraq invasion and occupation, that only cost a few thousand US lives......I mean this is the same public where 70% believed Sadddam was behind 9-11 (in March of 2003) so it's not too hard to fool most.

"Who cares if President had also used forged documents in the push for the Iraq invasion and occupation"

Only one problem with your comparison. Rather knew the documents he used were bunk and used them anyway.

portland imc - 2003.06.21 - Bush Knew Iraq Uranium Documents Forged; Lied Anyway

In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Bush introduced a new piece of evidence to show that Iraq was developing a nuclear arms program: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. ... Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."

One year earlier, Cheney's office had received from the British, via the Italians, documents purporting to show Iraq's purchase of uranium from Niger. Cheney had given the information to the CIA, which in turn asked a prominent diplomat, who had served as ambassador to three African countries, to investigate. He returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries. The CIA circulated the ambassador's report to the vice president's office, the ambassador confirms to TNR. But, after a British dossier was released in September detailing the purported uranium purchase, administration officials began citing it anyway, culminating in its inclusion in the State of the Union. "They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie," the former ambassador tells TNR. "They were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more persuasive."

so you think we are supposed to believe that Bush lied based on the testimony of the pompous liar Joeseph Wilson? His claims about Iraq were shown to be lies. He couldn't possibly have known whether Iraq was trying to buy uranium by sitting around a pool in the capital of Niger.

Everything Wilson said was proven to be a lie. contrary to his claim, Valerie Plame did recommend him for the assignment.

Wilson's earlier claim to the Washington Post that, in the CIA reports and documents on the Niger case, "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong," was also false, according to the Senate report. The relevant papers were not in CIA hands until eight months after he made his trip. Wilson now lamely says he may have "misspoken" on this. (See Susan Schmidt's article in the July 10 Washington Post.)

Now turn to the front page of the June 28 Financial Times for a report from the paper's national security correspondent, Mark Huband. He describes a strong consensus among European intelligence services that between 1999 and 2001 Niger was engaged in illicit negotiations over the export of its "yellow cake" uranium ore with North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and China. The British intelligence report on this matter, once cited by President Bush, has never been disowned or withdrawn by its authors. The bogus document produced by an Italian con man in October 2002, which has caused such embarrassment, was therefore more like a forgery than a fake: It was a fabricated version of a true bill.

In short, Wilson is a liar, and so are you.