Cindy Sheehan Protests Gitmo in Cuba

[jimnyc]

**This woman deserves to be sent to the same gallows as Saddam. She is there in support of many who perpetrated criminal acts against our military! Her whole family was smart enough to disconnect themselves from her but this scumbag continues to search for ways to get in the news.**

American "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan called for the closure of the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as she and other activists arrived here Saturday to draw attention to the nearly 400 terror suspects held at the remote site.


Sheehan is among 12 human rights and anti-war activists who will travel across this Caribbean island next week, arriving at the main gate of the Guantanamo base in eastern Cuba on Thursday - five years after the first prisoners were flown in.


"Anyone who knows me, knows that I am not afraid of anything," Sheehan said when asked about the possibility of U.S. sanctions for traveling to communist-run Cuba, which remains under an American trade embargo.


"What is more important is the inhumanity that my government is perpetrating at Guantanamo," she told reporters



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/1/7/02133.shtml?s=ic

[stephanie]

Never saw, this Anti War Portester........Idiot......*gag me with a huge spoon*......whatever...

That wasn't in love with a Anti American dick.............................................. ..................................tator.........

:no:

[Evil]

Never saw, this Anti War Portester........Idiot......*gag me with a huge spoon*......whatever...

That wasn't in love with a Anti American dick.............................................. ..................................tator.........

:no:

:lmao:

Maybe she is a dick.....tator herself.

[jillian]

**This woman deserves to be sent to the same gallows as Saddam.

For exercising her right to freedom of speech?


She is there in support of many who perpetrated criminal acts against our military!

Who??? What criminal acts against our military?

Cindy is just a no-so-bright angry woman who's efforts at making her point became derailed by her overzealousness, overstatement of her points and by her associations.

You guys give her far more credibility than anyone I know.

[Gunny]

**This woman deserves to be sent to the same gallows as Saddam. She is there in support of many who perpetrated criminal acts against our military! Her whole family was smart enough to disconnect themselves from her but this scumbag continues to search for ways to get in the news.**

American "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan called for the closure of the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as she and other activists arrived here Saturday to draw attention to the nearly 400 terror suspects held at the remote site.


Sheehan is among 12 human rights and anti-war activists who will travel across this Caribbean island next week, arriving at the main gate of the Guantanamo base in eastern Cuba on Thursday - five years after the first prisoners were flown in.


"Anyone who knows me, knows that I am not afraid of anything," Sheehan said when asked about the possibility of U.S. sanctions for traveling to communist-run Cuba, which remains under an American trade embargo.


"What is more important is the inhumanity that my government is perpetrating at Guantanamo," she told reporters



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/1/7/02133.shtml?s=ic

If she trespasses on US government property, thow her as in with the towelheads. After all, she may as well join her own kind.

[jimnyc]

For exercising her right to freedom of speech?

For actions that I think strengthens the enemies resolve. Protesting against taxes or voting issues is one thing, but protesting at the gates where terrorists, combatants and others are held captive is ridiculous. This only fuels the fire of our enemies.


Who??? What criminal acts against our military?Many of the captive were rounded up during combat missions. There are a number of Taliban soldiers there. In addition, it also houses Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh.

[jillian]

For actions that I think strengthens the enemies resolve. Protesting against taxes or voting issues is one thing, but protesting at the gates where terrorists, combatants and others are held captive is ridiculous. This only fuels the fire of our enemies.

Sorry. I think legitimate dissent is perfectly appropriate. The radicals don't need us to "strengthen their resolve". They already hate us and we keep giving them everything they need to recruit reenforcements.


Many of the captive were rounded up during combat missions. There are a number of Taliban soldiers there. In addition, it also houses Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh.

If they were rounded up during combat missions, they should be charged and tried. You don't know who's in there or for what. And therein lies the problem with Gitmo. You could be picked up tomorrow, sent there and have no recourse to an attorney, no charges against you, and no way to challenge your incarceration. Those basic rights should be enforced, even in Gitmo. Cindy just isn't the person to raise those issues and I think she turns off more people than she convinces because she's associated herself with the furthest extremes of the left.

[Gunny]

For exercising her right to freedom of speech?



Who??? What criminal acts against our military?

Cindy is just a no-so-bright angry woman who's efforts at making her point became derailed by her overzealousness, overstatement of her points and by her associations.

You guys give her far more credibility than anyone I know.

Free speech, huh? She's an idiot, not to mention butt-ugly. I find it hard to believe that any liberal who wants to be taken seriously would defend her repeated attempts at getting her face on the 5 o'clock news.

As far as rights go, she has no right to enter a US military reservation, and last I heard, one had to have special permission to travel to Cuba. If she violates the law in usual brainless manner, they need to toss her ass in the can for it.

Her ultra-extremist, illogical point of view does not place her above the law.

[Gunny]

Sorry. I think legitimate dissent is perfectly appropriate. The radicals don't need us to "strengthen their resolve". They already hate us and we keep giving them everything they need to recruit reenforcements.



If they were rounded up during combat missions, they should be charged and tried. You don't know who's in there or for what. And therein lies the problem with Gitmo. You could be picked up tomorrow, sent there and have no recourse to an attorney, no charges against you, and no way to challenge your incarceration. Those basic rights should be enforced, even in Gitmo. Cindy just isn't the person to raise those issues and I think she turns off more people than she convinces because she's associated herself with the furthest extremes of the left.

Define "legitimate dissent." I think she goes above and beyond the intent.

Why should people incarcerated for participating in actions against this nation be allowed to hide behind the very laws they wish to destroy?

[jillian]

Define "legitimate dissent." I think she goes above and beyond the intent.

Like I said... I just don't think she's all that bright. I also think that the right gives her far more credence than anyone I know who is a Dem. I don't think she goes beyond legitimate dissent. The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect speech we don't like because the nice stuff doesn't need protection.


Why should people incarcerated for participating in actions against this nation be allowed to hide behind the very laws they wish to destroy?

Don't you first have to prove they wanted to destroy the law before you draw that conclusion? It's not how we do things here. Or have we become a banana republic? I'd hate to think that was the case.

[jimnyc]

Sorry. I think legitimate dissent is perfectly appropriate. The radicals don't need us to "strengthen their resolve". They already hate us and we keep giving them everything they need to recruit reenforcements.

Legitimate dissent would be fine. But I disagree that protesting in Cuba is legit, nor defending the freedoms of those who fight against us. I disagree with any protesting against our military but fully understand and agree with the freedom to express ones dissent. Throw out a press conference, take out ads, have a parade/protest... but flying into Cuba of all places, to go to a military zone to protest them protecting our country?


If they were rounded up during combat missions, they should be charged and tried. You don't know who's in there or for what. And therein lies the problem with Gitmo. You could be picked up tomorrow, sent there and have no recourse to an attorney, no charges against you, and no way to challenge your incarceration. Those basic rights should be enforced, even in Gitmo. Cindy just isn't the person to raise those issues and I think she turns off more people than she convinces because she's associated herself with the furthest extremes of the left.

Policy may be a bit abrasive for some, but I have no doubt whatsoever to the legitimacy of those held. I seriously doubt the chances of an innocent American citizen ending up there for anything short of treason. Hell, I seriously doubt the every day citizen from foreign countries have anything to worry about either. Those in there were either in direct combat with our soldiers, financed terrorists or assisted them.

We're at war with fanatics. If a handful of suspected terrorists don't get rosy treatment, I won't lose a wink of sleep. If they were let free, and ever committed a terrorist act, most would take those in charge to task for their 'failures'.

[Gunny]

Like I said... I just don't think she's all that bright. I also think that the right gives her far more credence than anyone I know who is a Dem. I don't think she goes beyond legitimate dissent. The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect speech we don't like because the nice stuff doesn't need protection.

I don't see the right giving her all that much credence. This is a message board, not a cable news channel, nor international media outlet.:)

Just depends on how you interpret the right to free speech. IMO, the intent is that everyone has a right to voice their dissent in a proper forum. Obviously, I am in the minority with that opinion, but I believe it to be the correct one nonetheless.



Don't you first have to prove they wanted to destroy the law before you draw that conclusion? It's not how we do things here. Or have we become a banana republic? I'd hate to think that was the case.

When you fly planes into buildings, take up arms against the US, or conspire to bring about our downfall in any way, you are attempting to destroy the ideals that this Nation is founded on, to include its laws.

[Gunny]

Legitimate dissent would be fine. But I disagree that protesting in Cuba is legit, nor defending the freedoms of those who fight against us. I disagree with any protesting against our military but fully understand and agree with the freedom to express ones dissent. Throw out a press conference, take out ads, have a parade/protest... but flying into Cuba of all places, to go to a military zone to protest them protecting our country?



Policy may be a bit abrasive for some, but I have no doubt whatsoever to the legitimacy of those held. I seriously doubt the chances of an innocent American citizen ending up there for anything short of treason. Hell, I seriously doubt the every day citizen from foreign countries have anything to worry about either. Those in there were either in direct combat with our soldiers, financed terrorists or assisted them.

We're at war with fanatics. If a handful of suspected terrorists don't get rosy treatment, I won't lose a wink of sleep. If they were let free, and ever committed a terrorist act, most would take those in charge to task for their 'failures'.

They don't get rosey treatment? Last I heard, they live better and have their religion catered to better than a lot of US citizens living in the US do.

[jillian]

flying into Cuba of all places, to go to a military zone to protest them protecting our country?

Well... I don't think it's the smartest thing in the world and it wouldn't be a choice I'd make... but like I said, I don't think Cindy has huge credibility either.


Policy may be a bit abrasive for some, but I have no doubt whatsoever to the legitimacy of those held.

I think government is always suspect. And I wouldn't trust the current admin if their tongues were notarized.


I seriously doubt the chances of an innocent American citizen ending up there for anything short of treason.

They've already released people after a number of years against whom there was absolutely no evidence. Like I said, if they've committed treason... lock 'em up and throw away the key. But first it has to be proven.... they should have access to attorneys and hearings and to the evidence and charges against them. This is America, right?


Hell, I seriously doubt the every day citizen from foreign countries have anything to worry about either.

But that's been proven not to be the case since, again, we've already released innocent people who were held without charges for years.


Those in there were either in direct combat with our soldiers, financed terrorists or assisted them.

So prove it. That's what we do here, hence laws against suspending Habeas Corpus.


We're at war with fanatics. If a handful of suspected terrorists don't get rosy treatment, I won't lose a wink of sleep. If they were let free, and ever committed a terrorist act, most would take those in charge to task for their 'failures'.

You can't wage a war against an ideology. If WWII had been a "war against fascists", we'd still be fighting it. You can't just unilaterally decide someone is a terrorist without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves. If we make ourself no better than they are, then what exactly is it we're fighting to preserve?

Anyway, pleasure chatting.... time for me to share the 'puter with the boy!!

[OCA]

This c**t was washed up long ago, who gives a fuck where she goes or what she does. As far as I knew she was supposed to be hounding the halls of the new Congress until impeachment proceedings started, we see how well that went.

She makes retards look like rocket scientists.

[Gunny]

This **** was washed up long ago, who gives a fuck where she goes or what she does. As far as I knew she was supposed to be hounding the halls of the new Congress until impeachment proceedings started, we see how well that went.

She makes retards look like rocket scientists.

Must've gone over REAL big since this is the first I even heard of it.:laugh:

[OCA]

They've already released people after a number of years against whom there was absolutely no evidence. Like I said, if they've committed treason... lock 'em up and throw away the key. But first it has to be proven.... they should have access to attorneys and hearings and to the evidence and charges against them. This is America, right?





No, non-citizens especially in a time of war should not and are not granted any constitutional rights....oh and piss on their Geneva Convention rights too.

You do understand the meaning of the word enemy, right?

[OCA]

Must've gone over REAL big since this is the first I even heard of it.:laugh:

Yeah she wrote a letter to Pelosi and the boys saying she was demanding impeachment and was gonna camp out on Capitol Hill until it happened.:lmao:

[jillian]

No, non-citizens especially in a time of war should not and are not granted any constitutional rights....oh and piss on their Geneva Convention rights too.

You do understand the meaning of the word enemy, right?

The Iraqis were our enemy??


As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except Negroes and foreigners and Catholics." When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure and without the base alloy of hypocrisy." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume II, "Letter to Joshua F. Speed" (August 24, 1855), p. 323.


"What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried?" Lincoln's Cooper Institute Address, February
27, 1860

http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html

[OCA]

The Iraqis were our enemy??





http://home.att.net/~rjnorton/Lincoln78.html

You are attempting to muddy the topic, if these people are at Gitmo whether they be Iraqi, Syrian etc. etc. they are considered an enemy and prisoner of war and any investigation into their status should be done strictly by a military tribunal. No pow should be afforded such things as miranda rights, right to a lawyer etc. etc. etc.

That other crap was well, crap.

[Gaffer]

sheehan is a stupid bitch that is nothing but a media whore and would be forgotten if the goddamn media would just quit exposing her. But they won't because she's their doll and a means to bash Bush.

Gitmo is a POW camp. The enemy that are captured are taken there and interrogated. They will be held there until the war, not the iraq front, is over. A few have been releaased and were promptly killed or recaptured in Afanhistan or iraq fighting again. No Americans are held at Gitmo, only foriegn fighters. They have no Constitutional rights as they are not citizens. They are held strictly under the rules of the genieva convention. They are thugs and killers. Many are so bad their own countries refuse to take them back.

The islamists are our enemy. That's whats locked up in Gitmo.

As I said before, if it wasn't for the media and the other Bush haters we would have been finished in iraq and pulling out by now. They are the cause and reason we have had so many causalties there.

Bush's new strategy should be to go after the liberal media and worthless shits like sheehan. End their little propaganda war against America.

[Kathianne]

...

Bush's new strategy should be to go after the liberal media and worthless shits like sheehan. End their little propaganda war against America.

That would be nice, don't see that happening though.

[Gaffer]

That would be nice, don't see that happening though.

Me either but it is an important front in the war and is being ignored.

[jillian]

So your idea of what this country should be doing is to engage in censorship???

What are we fighting to preserve again?? Pretty sad. Perhaps dubya should do a better job? Then he might get better press.

[Gaffer]

So your idea of what this country should be doing is to engage in censorship???

What are we fighting to preserve again?? Pretty sad. Perhaps dubya should do a better job? Then he might get better press.

I am calling for truth in news reporting and self censorship when national security is concerned.

Sticking the latest attacks in iraq into a story about a school being built and open is not unbaised news reporting. Especially when the first and last paragraphs, out of 12, are the only parts mentioning the school.

As long as the media is liberally run Bush will never get better or even fair press. Freedom of speech gives them the right to do this and they hide behind that at every opporunity. I don't want it taken away. I want more straight reporting without an agenda. But straight news reporting is not even taught in the colleges anymore.

[Grumplestillskin]

I have no problem with Sheehan going to Cuba or protesting.

As for bias in the media....Fox more than takes up the slack IMO...

[Kathianne]

I have no problem with Sheehan going to Cuba or protesting.

As for bias in the media....Fox more than takes up the slack IMO...

the connection between the two, I mean to make your take credible...

[Gaffer]

Speaking of FOX. Hannity has a show on tonight and he interviews sheehan.

And FoX is as bad as the rest of them when it comes to sensationalizing the news. They also ignore stories that should be covered and aren't for one editorial reason or another.

[Gunny]

So your idea of what this country should be doing is to engage in censorship???

What are we fighting to preserve again?? Pretty sad. Perhaps dubya should do a better job? Then he might get better press.

Not censorship .... just more than the one-sided reporting we are continually bombarded with.

An effort to report the facts in an unbiased manner by the MSM would be nice.

[Gunny]

I have no problem with Sheehan going to Cuba or protesting.

As for bias in the media....Fox more than takes up the slack IMO...

:lmao:

One cable TV news outlet makes up for at least 6 tv news outlets and pretty much every newspaper in existence? And that's just in THIS country.

But please, DO post an example of political bias presented as fact by Fox. I would be interested to see what you consider "biased."

[High Plains Drifter]

But please, DO post an example of political bias presented as fact by Fox. I would be interested to see what you consider "biased."

It's biased because "he says so" Gunny. Why do you need more reason than that? :laugh:

[Gunny]

It's biased because "he says so" Gunny. Why do you need more reason than that? :laugh:

"He says so" is not a credible source in my book. If he wants some credibility, he needs to earn some.

[jillian]

:lmao:

One cable TV news outlet makes up for at least 6 tv news outlets and pretty much every newspaper in existence? And that's just in THIS country.

But please, DO post an example of political bias presented as fact by Fox. I would be interested to see what you consider "biased."


You do know that's like asking for proof that the Village Voice is skewed left, right? :no:

[Grumplestillskin]

Oh, I get it. All media outlets OTHER than Fox present facts in a biased manner, or outright lie about facts...sure....:laugh:

[Gunny]

You do know that's like asking for proof that the Village Voice is skewed left, right? :no:

Nah ... I asked for one example. Not all that hard.

[Gunny]

Oh, I get it. All media outlets OTHER than Fox present facts in a biased manner, or outright lie about facts...sure....:laugh:

Obviously you DON'T get it since I neither said nor implied anything of the sort.

[Grumplestillskin]

Obviously you DON'T get it since I neither said nor implied anything of the sort.

Oh, I do get it. We are talking media bias, you're talking outright lies. Show me where CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, NY Times have lied and the editors approved of it (you don't get to cite Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass - they did things that went under the radar, but when caught were sent to the wolves by their bosses). I don't think ANY media outlet LIES, I think they bend the truth to suit their own political agenda.....sometimes....

[Gaffer]

Oh, I do get it. We are talking media bias, you're talking outright lies. Show me where CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, NY Times have lied and the editors approved of it (you don't get to cite Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass - they did things that went under the radar, but when caught were sent to the wolves by their bosses). I don't think ANY media outlet LIES, I think they bend the truth to suit their own political agenda.....sometimes....

Bending the truth to suit your agenda is lying. Those you mentioned above have all done that ALOT. You left out Rueters and AP. Can we say Dan Rather? Those networks and papers are not just left leaning, they are outright standing in left field and thumbing their noses at America. CNN broadcast islamist snipers shooting American soldiers on pay per view.

So many lies and so little space to cover them all.

[Grumplestillskin]

Bending the truth to suit your agenda is lying. Those you mentioned above have all done that ALOT. You left out Rueters and AP. Can we say Dan Rather? Those networks and papers are not just left leaning, they are outright standing in left field and thumbing their noses at America. CNN broadcast islamist snipers shooting American soldiers on pay per view.

So many lies and so little space to cover them all.

No, you are wrong. A lie is a lie. Having an angle to a story is nothing new and ALL journos do it. Lying is deliberately making shit up that never happened.

Dunno why you mention CNN and the snipers with regard to lying. The snipers weren't really shooting at US soldiers???

[Gaffer]

No, you are wrong. A lie is a lie. Having an angle to a story is nothing new and ALL journos do it. Lying is deliberately making shit up that never happened.

Dunno why you mention CNN and the snipers with regard to lying. The snipers weren't really shooting at US soldiers???

Bending the truth is just as much a lie as outright making something up. Its designed to decieve. And all journalists doing it doesn't make it right. Its taught to them in college. No ethics among journalists anymore as far as the MSm and print media is concerned.

The cnn snipers scene were shot by a cnn stringer embeded with the islomists and they WERE shooting at US troops. The fact they would put that on pay per view shows what a discusting organization cnn is. Shall we talk about their deals with saddam, not to say anything bad about him and not report the autrocities they saw so they could keep people in iraq when all the other news media were getting kicked out.

The AP had sources that were unidentified, didn't exist or were not authorized to give out information. Rueters had the doctored photo expose along with the staged photos they depicted as news. They all bend and twist the truth and in many cases out right lie.

[Grumplestillskin]

Bending the truth is just as much a lie as outright making something up. Its designed to decieve. And all journalists doing it doesn't make it right. Its taught to them in college. No ethics among journalists anymore as far as the MSm and print media is concerned.

The cnn snipers scene were shot by a cnn stringer embeded with the islomists and they WERE shooting at US troops. The fact they would put that on pay per view shows what a discusting organization cnn is. Shall we talk about their deals with saddam, not to say anything bad about him and not report the autrocities they saw so they could keep people in iraq when all the other news media were getting kicked out.

The AP had sources that were unidentified, didn't exist or were not authorized to give out information. Rueters had the doctored photo expose along with the staged photos they depicted as news. They all bend and twist the truth and in many cases out right lie.

Give me an example of media telling an outright lie.

[Pale Rider]

Give me an example of media telling an outright lie.

Dan Rather. Fake documents. Remember?

[Grumplestillskin]

Dan Rather. Fake documents. Remember?

No lies told there. I read an article in Vanity Fair by Rather's producer (Mapps I think her name was). She was furious at the source after they broke the story. They were mistaken (but even then, I wouldn't be surprised if there was something to it), but they didn't knowingly lie. Big difference. However, if you do want to draw that conclusion - that they purposefully lied - then Bush knowingly lied to the American public about WMDs in Iraq. You think he did?

Try again...

[stephanie]

Nah, it doesn't have anything to do with putting down the United States...

Wives of jailed dissidents urge Sheehan to visit Cuba's prisons

By VANESSA ARRINGTON
Associated Press Writer


Wives and mothers of Cuban political prisoners urged U.S. peace activist Cindy Sheehan on Monday to visit the island's state-run jails during her week long trip to Cuba to call for the closure of the U.S.-operated Guantanamo prison.

The Ladies in White, a group of women demanding the release of their loved ones, described what they called "inhumane" conditions at Cuba's prisons in a letter for Sheehan that was sent to international reporters. The group said it was trying to get a copy to Sheehan as well.

"At the same time you and your noble followers fight for the closure of the U.S. prison at the Guantanamo naval base ... just a few miles away at the provincial Guantanamo prison in Cuban territory, peaceful and defenseless political prisoners suffer inhumane conditions, (living) without potable water and with poor nutrition, deficient medical assistance, insects and rodents, limited visits and precarious communication," the letter said.

"We exhort you to visit the prisons of Cuba, chosen randomly, and not those prepared" by authorities, it added.

Sheehan arrived in Havana on Saturday with a dozen other peace activists and plans to attend a human rights conference in the eastern Cuban city of Guantanamo on Wednesday. On Thursday, the group is to hold a protest outside the U.S. Navy's Guantanamo base, where nearly 400 men are being held on suspicion of links to al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

In the letter, the Ladies in White said they are a peaceful group that faces constant harassment from Cuban officials. They also asked Sheehan to meet with them so she "could know this other reality of Cuban society."

Their jailed husbands and sons are among 75 activists rounded up in the spring of 2003 and sentenced to prison terms ranging from six to 28 years. Sixteen of those prisoners have since been released for health reasons, but more than 300 human rights activists, independent journalists and members of outlawed political parties remain behind bars, according to rights groups.

Thursday's protest outside the U.S. military base will coincide with demonstrations around the world to mark the fifth anniversary of the first prisoners' arrival and demand that Washington close the prison.
http://www.dailycomet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070108/APN/701083118

[Pale Rider]

No lies told there. I read an article in Vanity Fair by Rather's producer (Mapps I think her name was). She was furious at the source after they broke the story. They were mistaken (but even then, I wouldn't be surprised if there was something to it), but they didn't knowingly lie. Big difference. However, if you do want to draw that conclusion - that they purposefully lied - then Bush knowingly lied to the American public about WMDs in Iraq. You think he did?

Try again...

Sorry Grump, but Dan Rather produced and read FAKE DOCUMENTS on air. They were exposed as fake by the bloggosphere. I can find the story if need be, but you know as well as I do what I'm saying is true. Dan Rather lied. MSM lied. Liars. Reading fake documents just went to show to what extent they'll go.

[Grumplestillskin]

Sorry Grump, but Dan Rather produced and read FAKE DOCUMENTS on air. They were exposed as fake by the bloggosphere. I can find the story if need be, but you know as well as I do what I'm saying is true. Dan Rather lied. MSM lied. Liars. Reading fake documents just went to show to what extent they'll go.

He did not know they were fake at the time, so he didn't lie. In his glee at finding them, and exposing Bush, he failed (or more correctly his producer failed) to double or even triple check the source. If he knew they were fake, and reported on them anyway, that woudl be a lie. I'm convinced he didn't. Even then, the only person who can without a shadow of a doubt prove they were real or not, is the general who signed them. He's dead.

[Pale Rider]

He did not know they were fake at the time, so he didn't lie. In his glee at finding them, and exposing Bush, he failed (or more correctly his producer failed) to double or even triple check the source. If he knew they were fake, and reported on them anyway, that woudl be a lie. I'm convinced he didn't. Even then, the only person who can without a shadow of a doubt prove they were real or not, is the general who signed them. He's dead.

Wrong. Even after they were exposed as fake, he still asserted he believed they were real. That's the actions of an over zealous liberal liar.

You lose on this one.

[Grumplestillskin]

Wrong. Even after they were exposed as fake, he still asserted he believed they were real. That's the actions of an over zealous liberal liar.

You lose on this one.

No, they were never proved beyond a reasonable doubt they were fake. Their witness wasn't reliable, that's for sure....

[Pale Rider]

No, they were never proved beyond a reasonable doubt they were fake. Their witness wasn't reliable, that's for sure....

Yes they were, and there was plenty of coverage on it.

[Gaffer]

No, they were never proved beyond a reasonable doubt they were fake. Their witness wasn't reliable, that's for sure....

They were proved fake. And after they were proved fake rather came out and said "They may be fake but that doesn't mean they aren't accurate." Now there was a brilliant statement. An admission of the lie and still denying it.

[Grumplestillskin]

They were not proven fake, but they probably were. He is right, they could be accurate. As mentioned, the only true way of finding out is the guy who signed them. He's dead.

[Pale Rider]

They were not proven fake, but they probably were. He is right, they could be accurate. As mentioned, the only true way of finding out is the guy who signed them. He's dead.

Here's the facts. They pretty much point out the obvious. The documents were fake, whether you say they aren't or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_authenticity_issues

[Grumplestillskin]

Here's the facts. They pretty much point out the obvious. The documents were fake, whether you say they aren't or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killian_documents_authenticity_issues

LOL re being obvious Pale. If there is one thign, it was far from obvious. It was only due to somebody who had expertise in fonts that the subject was even raised. So how an everyman journo like Rather (or his producer) would know the intricacies of typewriters is beyond me. Still doesn't prove they lied.
That being said - from your link:

In contrast, Killian's secretary at the time, Marian Carr Knox, stated, "We did discuss Bush's conduct and it was a problem Killian was concerned about. I think he was writing the memos so there would be some record that he was aware of what was going on and what he had done." Although she believed the content of the memos was accurate, she insisted that she did not type the memos CBS had obtained, called them fakes,[30] and noted they contained Army terminology that the Air Guard never used.

It's no wonder Rather still believes what he said was true - thus he did not lie.

[Gunny]

Oh, I do get it. We are talking media bias, you're talking outright lies. Show me where CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, NY Times have lied and the editors approved of it (you don't get to cite Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass - they did things that went under the radar, but when caught were sent to the wolves by their bosses). I don't think ANY media outlet LIES, I think they bend the truth to suit their own political agenda.....sometimes....

Strike two.

Prior to presenting your example of political bias presented by Fox as news, you can please feel free to quote me where I said a thing about outright lies.

Hint: Presumptions on your part do not count.

[Pale Rider]

LOL re being obvious Pale. If there is one thign, it was far from obvious. It was only due to somebody who had expertise in fonts that the subject was even raised. So how an everyman journo like Rather (or his producer) would know the intricacies of typewriters is beyond me. Still doesn't prove they lied.
That being said - from your link:

In contrast, Killian's secretary at the time, Marian Carr Knox, stated, "We did discuss Bush's conduct and it was a problem Killian was concerned about. I think he was writing the memos so there would be some record that he was aware of what was going on and what he had done." Although she believed the content of the memos was accurate, she insisted that she did not type the memos CBS had obtained, called them fakes,[30] and noted they contained Army terminology that the Air Guard never used.

It's no wonder Rather still believes what he said was true - thus he did not lie.

Well grump, no matter how long or vehemently you insist Rather didn't lie, fact of the matter is, he didn't tell the truth either. What he said was a fabrication, and I call those lies.

[Gunny]

No, you are wrong. A lie is a lie. Having an angle to a story is nothing new and ALL journos do it. Lying is deliberately making shit up that never happened.

Dunno why you mention CNN and the snipers with regard to lying. The snipers weren't really shooting at US soldiers???

You would be incorrect. Lies of omission are still lies. Presenting only half the facts to support a political agenda is dishonest; which, still is lying. Playing semantics with it is called "yellow journalism." Just because it is accepted because it literally contains no lie, just half the truth, doesn't make it any less a lie.

One does not have to completely fabricate something for it to be a lie. A statement such as that is in and of itself dishonest because I know you possess at least the raw intelligence to know better.

[Gunny]

No lies told there. I read an article in Vanity Fair by Rather's producer (Mapps I think her name was). She was furious at the source after they broke the story. They were mistaken (but even then, I wouldn't be surprised if there was something to it), but they didn't knowingly lie. Big difference. However, if you do want to draw that conclusion - that they purposefully lied - then Bush knowingly lied to the American public about WMDs in Iraq. You think he did?

Try again...

They presented unverifed information as fact. Journalists are and should be more responsible than that. The fact is, they just wanted to be the first to "break the big one," and it cost them bigtime for not doing their groundwork prior to presenting the information to the American public as fact.

[Gunny]

He did not know they were fake at the time, so he didn't lie. In his glee at finding them, and exposing Bush, he failed (or more correctly his producer failed) to double or even triple check the source. If he knew they were fake, and reported on them anyway, that woudl be a lie. I'm convinced he didn't. Even then, the only person who can without a shadow of a doubt prove they were real or not, is the general who signed them. He's dead.

You may be convinced he didn't know, but others are not so sure. Only Dan Rather knows for sure; however, having just presented false information as fact, I'm sure even you could see where he doesn't really get the benefit of doubt as to whether or not he is lying.

[Grumplestillskin]

Strike two.

Prior to presenting your example of political bias presented by Fox as news, you can please feel free to quote me where I said a thing about outright lies.

Hint: Presumptions on your part do not count.

Fair enough re lies. As for political bias, I have seen plenty of it on Fox news. Dunno how I get into their archives onto the net. If you want to example after example after example, get out a movie called Outfoxed - it's full of examples..

[Grumplestillskin]

Well grump, no matter how long or vehemently you insist Rather didn't lie, fact of the matter is, he didn't tell the truth either. What he said was a fabrication, and I call those lies.

AT the time he thought it was the truth, and even Killian's secretary believes it to be so. How can that even come close to being a lie? He fabricated nothing.

[Grumplestillskin]

You would be incorrect. Lies of omission are still lies. Presenting only half the facts to support a political agenda is dishonest; which, still is lying. Playing semantics with it is called "yellow journalism." Just because it is accepted because it literally contains no lie, just half the truth, doesn't make it any less a lie.

One does not have to completely fabricate something for it to be a lie. A statement such as that is in and of itself dishonest because I know you possess at least the raw intelligence to know better.

If they are facts, then they are not lies. Depends if you can prove the other side of the case adn that they wilfully omitted it. Even then, you are stretching it to call it a lie. As an aside (and this is for Pale too), I've never considered 20/20, 60 Minutes/ Larry King, Hannity and Colmes as straight news anyway. They are op-ed pieces...

As for lies of omission, the right has constantly said that Bush never lied about WMDs. When I went down the "lies of omission" route, they would have none of it. They insisted he didn't lie...

[Grumplestillskin]

They presented unverifed information as fact. Journalists are and should be more responsible than that. The fact is, they just wanted to be the first to "break the big one," and it cost them bigtime for not doing their groundwork prior to presenting the information to the American public as fact.

Yup, and that STILL doesn't make it a lie...

[Grumplestillskin]

You may be convinced he didn't know, but others are not so sure. Only Dan Rather knows for sure; however, having just presented false information as fact, I'm sure even you could see where he doesn't really get the benefit of doubt as to whether or not he is lying.

He didn't know if he was presenting false information as fact. Even now, according to Pale's wikipedia link, it is still open for debate. Doesn't even pass the giggle test re lying IMO...

[Gunny]

Fair enough re lies. As for political bias, I have seen plenty of it on Fox news. Dunno how I get into their archives onto the net. If you want to example after example after example, get out a movie called Outfoxed - it's full of examples..

I'm not asking for a link or anything like that. Surely you can recall just one event?

My argument is this: I don't place Fox above sensationalism nor "yellow journalism" anymore than any other media source. It is a fact of the business.

When I research a topic, I usually look at 4-5 media sources, and any historical information that pertains to the topic, and I keep the common denominators and usually toss out the BS on the periphery.

Fox, IMO, presents more facts without agenda than most other media sources. And don't confuse reported news with opinion shows such as Hannity and Colmes, O'Reilly, etc. I consider them exactly what they are.

And you can thank CNN for my tuning in to Fox. On their debate shows, they turn into shouting matches under the premise that he who shouts loudest wins. That Carville nimrod comes to mind.

To be fair, if O'Reilly starts shouting down his opponent, I tune out. I want to hear what BOTH sides have to say, and if I'm right, I have nothing to fear from a contrary opinion. So, IMO, using the shoutdown beatdown just proves insecurity of position on the shouter's part.

[Gaffer]

If they are facts, then they are not lies. Depends if you can prove the other side of the case adn that they wilfully omitted it. Even then, you are stretching it to call it a lie. As an aside (and this is for Pale too), I've never considered 20/20, 60 Minutes/ Larry King, Hannity and Colmes as straight news anyway. They are op-ed pieces...

As for lies of omission, the right has constantly said that Bush never lied about WMDs. When I went down the "lies of omission" route, they would have none of it. They insisted he didn't lie...

Bush didn't lie. Based on the info he had he thought saddam had wmd's. And wmd's was not the only reason for the invasion. Now based on your logic that Bush lied. We can apply that to Rather lied. He went based on the information he had which was incorrect. Therefore he lied.

The difference is Bush is still in office and Rather went out in disgrace.

[Pale Rider]

AT the time he thought it was the truth, and even Killian's secretary believes it to be so. How can that even come close to being a lie? He fabricated nothing.

He cited material that was not athentic in origin. That was lying. How many times do we have to go back and forth on that?

You won't admit he lied, I won't say he told the truth. Stalemate.

[Grumplestillskin]

Bush didn't lie. Based on the info he had he thought saddam had wmd's. And wmd's was not the only reason for the invasion. Now based on your logic that Bush lied. We can apply that to Rather lied. He went based on the information he had which was incorrect. Therefore he lied.

Exactly my point, and I made it in a previous post. Am I in an echo chamber?? :D


The difference is Bush is still in office and Rather went out in disgrace.

Rather did not go out in disgrace - well not in my opinion. As for Bush - it's only just beginning Gaffer....wait til Pelosi starts ranting...:thumb:

[Grumplestillskin]

He cited material that was not athentic in origin. That was lying. How many times do we have to go back and forth on that?

You won't admit he lied, I won't say he told the truth. Stalemate.

Not authenticating something and lying are two different things, that's why. And no, it is not a stalemate. He didn't lie. Simple. And you haven't proven otherwise. I, on the other hand, have.

[Grumplestillskin]

I'm not asking for a link or anything like that. Surely you can recall just one event?

My argument is this: I don't place Fox above sensationalism nor "yellow journalism" anymore than any other media source. It is a fact of the business.

When I research a topic, I usually look at 4-5 media sources, and any historical information that pertains to the topic, and I keep the common denominators and usually toss out the BS on the periphery.

Fox, IMO, presents more facts without agenda than most other media sources. And don't confuse reported news with opinion shows such as Hannity and Colmes, O'Reilly, etc. I consider them exactly what they are.

And you can thank CNN for my tuning in to Fox. On their debate shows, they turn into shouting matches under the premise that he who shouts loudest wins. That Carville nimrod comes to mind.

To be fair, if O'Reilly starts shouting down his opponent, I tune out. I want to hear what BOTH sides have to say, and if I'm right, I have nothing to fear from a contrary opinion. So, IMO, using the shoutdown beatdown just proves insecurity of position on the shouter's part.


I haven't watched Fox in so long, I can't recall. As I said, Outfoxed had about 60 minutes worth, althought to be fair, half of that were the aforementioned op-ed shows.

[Gunny]

Exactly my point, and I made it in a previous post. Am I in an echo chamber?? :D



Rather did not go out in disgrace - well not in my opinion. As for Bush - it's only just beginning Gaffer....wait til Pelosi starts ranting...:thumb:

President Bush won't go out in disgrace unless he does something disgraceful to warrant it. When the smoke clears, most of the propaganda will be forgotten.

The only reason Abraham Lincoln is as revered as he is is because he was murdered. One can only imagine what his legacy would have been had he lived since Andrew Johnson was impeached for attempting to implement to the letter Lincoln's plan for reconstruction of the South.

And yeah, Rather went out in disgrace. He was forced to step down for reporting unverified information as fact in an attempt to discredit President Bush.

[Missileman]

AT the time he thought it was the truth, and even Killian's secretary believes it to be so. How can that even come close to being a lie? He fabricated nothing.

The problem isn't that his first story was based on faked documents. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was duped. The problem lies with his reaction after it was confirmed that the documents weren't legit. He argued that it didn't matter rather than admit he had made a mistake. Perhaps it's a family trait as evidenced by his last name. He was blinded by his zeal to find some dirt on Bush. If he had been more objective in his pursuit of the truth, he probably could have avoided the mistake in the first place.

[Pale Rider]

Not authenticating something and lying are two different things, that's why. And no, it is not a stalemate. He didn't lie. Simple. And you haven't proven otherwise. I, on the other hand, have.

So... OK... I can cite something on here that comes from unknown sources, and it's authenticity can't be proven, and you're going to stand behind what I say as the truth? Sorry grump, but you're cracked pard.

He lied, and the only proof you've come up contrary to that resides inside your head, and nowhere else.

[Gunny]

Yup, and that STILL doesn't make it a lie...

The fact that it turned out to be falsified information made it a lie.

[Gunny]

He didn't know if he was presenting false information as fact. Even now, according to Pale's wikipedia link, it is still open for debate. Doesn't even pass the giggle test re lying IMO...

All Rather did that can be positively verified is present false information; whether knowingly or not. That is irresponsible reporting according to the 3 years of journalism I took, and on a more practical side, not covering one's ass very well.

[Gunny]

Not authenticating something and lying are two different things, that's why. And no, it is not a stalemate. He didn't lie. Simple. And you haven't proven otherwise. I, on the other hand, have.

I disagree. There is no evidence one way or the other. You cannot prove he did not lie other than to quote Rather, a single, obviously biased source of information.

[Gunny]

The problem isn't that his first story was based on faked documents. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he was duped. The problem lies with his reaction after it was confirmed that the documents weren't legit. He argued that it didn't matter rather than admit he had made a mistake. Perhaps it's a family trait as evidenced by his last name. He was blinded by his zeal to find some dirt on Bush. If he had been more objective in his pursuit of the truth, he probably could have avoided the mistake in the first place.

Had he come out as soon as he the documents were found to be fake and reported such, he could definitely easily have saved face, and probably his job.

[Grumplestillskin]

So... OK... I can cite something on here that comes from unknown sources, and it's authenticity can't be proven, and you're going to stand behind what I say as the truth? Sorry grump, but you're cracked pard.

No, I wouldn't stand behind what you say as the truth. Neither would I say you lied if you believed what you cited. If you cited something you knew was a lie but said it was the truth, then you'd be lying.


He lied, and the only proof you've come up contrary to that resides inside your head, and nowhere else.

No, I came up with him not knowing the evidence was a lie, and in fact, has yet to proven so. Huge difference.

You know, you guys talk about the media begin biased, and yet here you guys are doing exactly what you claim they are. Your dislike of Rather and CBS blinds you to the FACT you have no evidence that he lied. It's not a matter of opinion either. I think the guy has enough history to give him the benefit of the doubt - if there is indeed any.

[Grumplestillskin]

The fact that it turned out to be falsified information made it a lie.

1) It is not a fact it was falsified. I have already quoted Pale's own link that Killian's secretary believes it was true. It is only a lie if he knew it was falsified. Can you prove he knew that?

[Grumplestillskin]

All Rather did that can be positively verified is present false information; whether knowingly or not. That is irresponsible reporting according to the 3 years of journalism I took, and on a more practical side, not covering one's ass very well.

His team is responsible for not verifying the information. It is the producer's job to verify the information, not Rather's. And you are right, they should have verified it.

[Pale Rider]

1) It is not a fact it was falsified. I have already quoted Pale's own link that Killian's secretary believes it was true. It is only a lie if he knew it was falsified. Can you prove he knew that?

Grump, just because Killian's secretary believed it was true, does-not-make-it-true. When you're out there making statements of a very shattering, important nature, it is UP TO YOU to PROVE THEM TRUE.

Your arguement on this whole point is lame at best. You're not being truthful defending it.