ForgeryGate ramifications

[GWB]

Does anyone doubt that this 60 Minutes story on Iraq would be running if not for the forged documents controversy?

CBS Nixes '60 Minutes' Story on Iraq War (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/entertainment/gossip/9759838.htm)

from article (AP):

NEW YORK (AP) - CBS News has shelved a "60 Minutes" report on the rationale for war in Iraq because it would be "inappropriate" to air it so close to the presidential election, the network said on Saturday.

The report on weapons of mass destruction was set to air on Sept. 8 but was put off in favor of a story on President Bush's National Guard service. The Guard story was discredited because it relied on documents impugning Bush's service that were apparently fake....

The network last week appointed former U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and retired Associated Press chief executive Louis Boccardi to investigate what went wrong with the National Guard report and recommend changes.

The controversy has put CBS News officials squarely on the fire line, particularly anchor Dan Rather, who narrated the National Guard report....

[adios]

If CBS had a good story they'd go with it. CBS is spinning the reason they dropped the story at least for now. Makes you wonder about how thoroughly they do any research for a story.

[wacki]

NEW YORK (AP) - CBS News has shelved a "60 Minutes" report on the rationale for war in Iraq because it would be "inappropriate" to air it so close to the presidential election, the network said on Saturday.

The report on weapons of mass destruction was set to air on Sept. 8 but was put off in favor of a story on President Bush's National Guard service.

Does anyone else see anything totally wrong with this? It's inappropriate to run a story on Iraq WMD's because the election is too close, but it's ok to do a story on Bush's Gaurd service? What kind of logic is that?

[slamdunkpro]

In other words they decides to run the story that they thought would do the most damage to "W"

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
In other words they decides to run the story that they thought would do the most damage to "W"

[/ QUOTE ]

We have a winner!

You are exactly right.

[nicky g]

"In other words they decides to run the story that they thought would do the most damage to "W""

Any objective story on Iraq's non-existent WMD capability is pretty likely to do some damage to W.

[Dr Wogga]

how does it just do damage to Bush? Seems to me that Kerry and the Clintons, among other demagogues, also spoke of WMD in Iraq. The "Anybody But Bush" campaign ain't workin' nicky. Just ain't a-working anymore

[nicky g]

Speaking of something isn't quite the same as betting the lives of 15,000 Iraqi civilians and 1000 US troops on its existence, and losing.

[Dr Wogga]

....why Bush is ahead in the polls. Thanks for clearing that up /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Speaking of something isn't quite the same as betting the lives of 15,000 Iraqi civilians and 1000 US troops on its existence, and losing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who thinks finding WMDs was the end-all reason for going into Iraq probably believes that the American Revolution was about getting the taste of tea out of the Boston Harbor.

[nicky g]

I certainly don't believe that was the real motive. But it what the war was sold on, and its "legal" (ahem) basis. And Bush and co made themselves look pretty stupid with all their claims that they knew exactly where the weapons were, of reconstituted nuclear programmes etc etc. Which was my point about why the CBS documentary would be damaging if accurate.

[Dr Wogga]

....that only Dan Rather giving oral on the Sopranos will bring back the non-believers

[Cyrus]

"CBS has lost so much credibility that only Dan Rather giving oral on the Sopranos will bring back the non-believers."

For a guy who promotes at every opportunity his macho heterosexuality, the prevalence of gay imagery in your posts is quite, well, ..suspect.

Might yer much-touted "Roman Catholic" upbringing be guilty of a li'l somethin'g here?

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[jslag]

WMDs weren't the end all reason for us going to war in Iraq, but would we be there right now if the Bush administration hadn't mentioned WMDs at all? Would the American public and congressional government supported the war if there were no mention of Saddam actively possessing and/or pursuing WMDs? I don't think so.

And just because the primary justification for the war on Iraq has been proven false, doesn't make all the other justifications correct.

So what are we in Iraq for GWB? To free it of "rape rooms and torture chambers"? Is that why? Please.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
So what are we in Iraq for GWB? To free it of "rape rooms and torture chambers"? Is that why? Please.


[/ QUOTE ]

The Answer is Here. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1065152&page=&view=&s b=5&o=)

[nicky g]

Except Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and outside the feverish mind of Paul Wolfowitz had never launched a significant terrorist attack agains the US. I love this attitude: "9/11 showed that the world has changed... So we're gonna run around invading anywhere we don't like regardless of the legality and whether or not they geniunely threaten or have attacked us, leaving destruction and chaos in our wake." Did 9/11 succeed in decapitating the US government? Because in foreign policy terms it's been rnning around like a headless chicken ever since.

[jslag]

You beat me to the punch. The Bush administration and its supporters are clear about one thing: "Our world changed on 9/11, and we're going to use it to justify anything we see fit, regardless of its relevance to our cause."

Is it supposed to be more convincing because some senator who has never supported any past military action supports Bush's occupation of Iraq?

You can't really justify the war based on the original reasons it was sold on, so you just tie it up with 9/11 and suddenly "our world has changed" and it all makes perfect sense to occupy Iraq???

We know Saddam wasn't interested in collaborating with terrorist groups, it's been confirmed by many intelligence communities. At best he may have let some terrorists travel through his country... but so have many other nations who we've no reason to invade.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
We know Saddam wasn't interested in collaborating with terrorist groups, it's been confirmed by many intelligence communities

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah thats why Saddam sent money to subsidize Palestinian suicide bombing. . .

[nicky g]

"Yeah thats why Saddam sent money to subsidize Palestinian suicide bombing. . . "

I don;t agree with jsalg's point that Saddam was never interested in aiding any terrorist groups; at times he did (mainly thinking of Abu Nidal). The main point was that he never had any significant al-Qaeda ties. But the oft-repeated point about the suicide bomb support is rubbish; his policy was to give money to any Palestinian family that lost a relative or their home in the intifada, which included the families of suicide bombers (both because of the death and the fact that the Israelis then demolished their house, regardless of their involvement). No evidence has ever been given that he funded suicide bomb operations, nor that any of the promised money actually got through to the families.

[jslag]

I wasn't aware of this, and I haven't validated it.

However, there are all sorts of individuals and leaders who contribute money to terrorist groups. Not all of those groups are set out to destroy the U.S.

I'm not defending Saddam or his regime. But I am saying there is a big difference between removing him from power with full support of international law and a majority of other nations, and unilaterally invading Iraq based on false pretenses (no WMD, and from what I've read no real ties to Al-Quaeda or other groups that had ambitions to imminently attack U.S. soil).

I'm not going to even get into how broken the Bush administration's Israeli/Palestinian policy is.

j.