Posted on 05/04/2005 5:37:16 AM PDT by Williams
Dan Rather's replacement hasn't fallen far from the tree. Seems to me that when he replaced Rather, Schieffer tried to pretend he was more politically even-handed. That mask is off.
On Imus this morning, Schieffer was certain that President Bush's plan for personal retirement accounts will never be passed, because it will cause a 9 trillion dollar deficit in social security. But his most liberal remarks were saved for Iraq.
Schieffer said Iraq is "exploding in violence." and he directly compared Iraq with Vietnam. He said public support for the Iraq war will plummet as it did for the Vietnam war "as the casualties mount." Claimed the Bush administration was misleading us a few weeks ago that the violence was decreasing. Went on about the Iraqis' inability to protect "minority rights" (the Sunnis) and said the Iraqi government won't be able to function as a result.
Schieffer's most absurd statement was that he supported the Iraq war when the U.S. government was claiming Sadaam Hussein had NUCLEAR WEAPONS and he believed it, but now there is no justification for the war. Of course, the Bush administration never claimed Sadaam Hussein had nuclear weapons. Schieffer and Imus both gloated over a Gallup poll showing support for the war at "an all time low."
Now unless I'm wrong, attacks and U.S. caualties definitely are down in Iraq, and following our election and the Iraq election, opposition to the war is down markedly. But according to Schieffer support for the war will collapse if Iraq isn't under control this year, because republicans will be afraid to face the next elections with the war in this horrible state.
So much for even a semblance of less leftism at the CBS anchor position. And yes, I know no one is watching Schieffer.
His ratings are even lower than Rather. I didn't think that was possible. Most of them are from the Geritol generation and dwindling daily.
Imus looks like a talking scrotum.
I bet Imus called Diedre this morning to see how he should feel about today's issues.
Yeah, Saddam's breaking of ultimately 18 UN Resolutions was no justification at all. Why didn't we try REALLY stern language, first?
He has never had any other thoughts in his head than the usual liberal/socialist crap. He just (usually) keeps his mouth shut more than the other idjyots...
Lifted right out of the EU constitution.
The right to detonate IED's and slaughter thousands of civilians.Lifted right out of the EU constitution. (/Sarcasm Off.
A talking scrotum, who refuses to let facts get in the way of his slanderous and uninformed opinions.
As for the rest of his crew, when he refers to them as stooges, crooks and morons, that at least seems to be spot on.
Imagine how I feel...both men are TEXANS! But you are right; it is generational journalism and all of them are cut from the same piece of cloth. They know of no other way to think or speak. Literally, they would become mute if they were forced to either speak differently or shut up.
THe anchor for one of the big 3 broadcast news sources goes on a radio show and says that privatization just won't work, and yet we are supposed to believe that when CBS covers the SS debate they will provide all the facts about privatization?
Of course, the use of the word privatization is already a biased presentation of the facts.
Privatization means having a private company take over a function of the government.
The president is pushing "private accounts" (or "personal accounts"), not "privatization".
No matter, EVEN in Texas--Half the people you meet are BELOW average.
Their gloating may end soon because the support for both of their tv shows is also at an all time low.
"will cause a 9 trillion dollar deficit in social security"
It's not going to CAUSE a 9 trillion dollar deficit in social security. There already is a 9 trillion dollar deficit in social security.
Like many other people, I always viewed Schieffer as one of the more "unbiased" journalists around.
To anyone that spouts off that "private accounts won't work", I would like to ask the following:
Do you have a 401(k)? If so, would you be happy if the government took over your 401(k) and in return guaranteed you a 1% rate of return on you contributions (assuming you live long enough after you retire)? Or would you rather keep your "private account" 401(k) and control the investments?
"Decrepit" talking to "warmed-over death". How exciting. Makes me want to go out, join AARP and buy my first box of Depends.
He won't and they won't. CBS News is clinically dead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.