B-Man
02-27-2003, 01:35 PM
The double-standards and anti-Americanism of the liberal media has truly become sickening. Why would Dan Rather assist this tyrant in spreading his propoganda? Where were the questions about VX and sarin gas, and other WMD? How about questions about cutting out the tongues of dissidents, state-authorized rape, and torturing children in front of their parents? Do you think Rather would ever throw such softballs if he was interviewing Bush?
I enjoyed this editiorial in the NY Post:
February 27, 2003 -- Why does Dan Rather think that serving as straight man to Saddam Hussein's propaganda blitz serves the best interests of anyone other than Saddam?
More important, why were he and CBS so reluctant to let the Bush administration rebut the Butcher of Baghdad's self-serving oratory - right then and there, on the same broadcast?
CBS last night aired Rather's "exclusive" interview with Saddam - a sitdown the Iraqi leader awarded to Rather after the intercession of their mutual friend, the ubiquitous Ramsey Clark, a longtime leader of the Hate America brigade.
The White House says CBS rejected an offer to have National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice appear on last night's "60 Minutes II" program - insisting that only President Bush himself was welcome on the same show with Saddam.
The White House turned down that demand - and rightly so - contending that it would establish an unacceptable "moral equivalence between a dictator and democracy."
CBS officials later reversed themselves, saying they might let Vice President Dick Cheney or Secretary of State Colin Powell answer Saddam.
Who are they to dictate the choice of an administration official to the White House?
They certainly didn't set any conditions on Saddam. On the contrary - Rather & Co. were more than happy to honor any demands set by the Iraqi government.
Saddam's personal crew shot the interview, then held on to the tapes for 24 hours and edited it themselves.
Can you imagine CBS agreeing to similar conditions for an interview with, say, President Bush?
Indeed, Rather's sitdown with Saddam consisted of one softball after another: "What's the most important thing you want the American people to understand?" he asked at one point.
Saddam's response: "The Iraqi people are not the enemy of the American people." (True, oddly enough: Saddam is the problem, not his people.)
Rather thrilled at Saddam's offer to "debate" President Bush - with the CBS anchor himself as moderator. "This is new," Rather declared breathlessly.
But it wasn't. As the Media Research Center notes, Saddam made exactly the same offer back in 1990 on the eve of the Gulf War - and to Rather himself, in another "exclusive" interview.
(Déjà vu all over again, eh, Dan?)
That was the same interview, by the way, in which Rather all but pleaded with Saddam to warn Americans of the dangers ahead, asking him: "Do you think this is a Vietnam in the sand for the United States?"
Things turned out otherwise, of course.
No surprise, though, that Saddam picks Ramsey Clark's pal Dan Rather to transmit his propaganda.
I enjoyed this editiorial in the NY Post:
February 27, 2003 -- Why does Dan Rather think that serving as straight man to Saddam Hussein's propaganda blitz serves the best interests of anyone other than Saddam?
More important, why were he and CBS so reluctant to let the Bush administration rebut the Butcher of Baghdad's self-serving oratory - right then and there, on the same broadcast?
CBS last night aired Rather's "exclusive" interview with Saddam - a sitdown the Iraqi leader awarded to Rather after the intercession of their mutual friend, the ubiquitous Ramsey Clark, a longtime leader of the Hate America brigade.
The White House says CBS rejected an offer to have National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice appear on last night's "60 Minutes II" program - insisting that only President Bush himself was welcome on the same show with Saddam.
The White House turned down that demand - and rightly so - contending that it would establish an unacceptable "moral equivalence between a dictator and democracy."
CBS officials later reversed themselves, saying they might let Vice President Dick Cheney or Secretary of State Colin Powell answer Saddam.
Who are they to dictate the choice of an administration official to the White House?
They certainly didn't set any conditions on Saddam. On the contrary - Rather & Co. were more than happy to honor any demands set by the Iraqi government.
Saddam's personal crew shot the interview, then held on to the tapes for 24 hours and edited it themselves.
Can you imagine CBS agreeing to similar conditions for an interview with, say, President Bush?
Indeed, Rather's sitdown with Saddam consisted of one softball after another: "What's the most important thing you want the American people to understand?" he asked at one point.
Saddam's response: "The Iraqi people are not the enemy of the American people." (True, oddly enough: Saddam is the problem, not his people.)
Rather thrilled at Saddam's offer to "debate" President Bush - with the CBS anchor himself as moderator. "This is new," Rather declared breathlessly.
But it wasn't. As the Media Research Center notes, Saddam made exactly the same offer back in 1990 on the eve of the Gulf War - and to Rather himself, in another "exclusive" interview.
(Déjà vu all over again, eh, Dan?)
That was the same interview, by the way, in which Rather all but pleaded with Saddam to warn Americans of the dangers ahead, asking him: "Do you think this is a Vietnam in the sand for the United States?"
Things turned out otherwise, of course.
No surprise, though, that Saddam picks Ramsey Clark's pal Dan Rather to transmit his propaganda.