60 Minutes - Bob Simon - GW's Propoganda machine!! Did anyone watch this drivel?

CBS News | 12/7/2002 | Bob Simon

[CyberAnt]

Yes, they have no shame!

They don't care if it tears the country apart. Hillary wants to run for President and they have to destroy Bush and all his admin to make it easier for her. Anybody want to take bets on that theory??

[geedee]

And if I'm not mistaken, he has had them for over a decade. Why does he suddenly pose such a threat now? Why is the threat so serious that it justifies the spending of billions of American dollars to remove him?

9-11 changed everything. 9-11 proved our homeland is no longer immune to terrorist attacks -- since we didn't learn our lesson the first time the World Trade Center was bombed.

Not to mention the risk of reprisal from Saddam or those who sympathize with Saddam. And possibly with the very same WMD's.

Do you think for a second bin Laden or any of the other terrorists wouldn't use WMD's against us if they had them and the means of using them REGARDLESS of what we do? Appeasement is no cure. Terrorists and despots, and also Dim-Dems for that matter, survive and thrive only by demonizing someone. They have to have someone to hate, someone to blame for their own inadequacies.

So am I saying we have to take on all the despots and dictators who have WMD's? Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. GW has a priority list and he's going to take them on, OR OUT depending on their response, one at a time. We're in for a long, long and terrifying war. Like it or not, we're the most powerful and successful country the world has ever known. We will always be the Great Satan to those terrorists needing a demon. And sitting back while they take potshots at us, to me, is not the solution. Offense truly is the best defense. We could contain WMD's when they were developed by major, semi-stable countries because they knew if they used them we would wipe them out. That's hardly a deterrent to sociopaths and suicide bombers.

Why won't Saddam use his WMD's if he knows his days are numbered? That's a fair question. Bullies and tyrants can not be negotiated with. Iraq didn't develop WMD's for defense. The Kurds didn't gas them first. Nor did the Iranians. Saddam developed them for offense . . . and he will use them again if we don't take him out now.

[paul51]

I think you may be in the wrong place.

[CyberAnt]

E A S Y!! Hillary is running the media - she has already publically stated that Bush is going after Iraq to settle the score for his dad.

I think: Hillary is getting antsy and wants to run for president in 2004 - not 2008 - and ... she will use the media to try to destroy the Bush admin NOW!!

If you don't like this attack, just wait a few days and they will come up with something else.

[HardStarboard]

>>>press stooges explain how we are the war mongers, and Bush is the dunce leading us down to destruction-- <<<

I have a gut feel that George Bush is not only poised to destroy Saddam and his evil regime; I think a by product will be severe collateral damage to the reputation of the liberal press.

I believe that when Bush reveals what we really know about Saddams WMD efforts, it will discredit those who have sought to discredit him. And even if he doesn't reveal much before we attack, I believe that what will be uncovered as a result of the attack will destroy the credibility of the CNN/CBS/ABC/NBC/PBS whiners.

Couldn't happen to a better cross section of American traitors.

[hove]

"9-11 changed everything.

This sentence does sum up your response. And it is a good point. You say we are at war...and that requires that we destroy all those who pose a threat. And Saddam probably has WMD's....and if he doesn't use them, he may give access to those that will. And that is justification to invade Iraq. OK...I'll buy that. With that in mind, here is what I want our president to tell the American people. "My fellow Americans....we are at war. The enemy resides in many places in the world, but they are resolute in our destuction. They are a dangerous network. We know that Saddam is sympathetic to their cause, and may provide the terrorists with the weapons that could case our nation great harm. We have decided to target Saddam and his regime to destroy this certain threat. This is not an easy decision! It may result in casualties on both sides. But it must be done. And we will appreciate the support of any nation that understands the grave mission we are on. But we do not require permission form any nation or any supranational body. It is America under attack....and it is America I have sworn to defend! The removal of Saddam and the destruction of his arsenal of WMD's is our immediate objective. But the fight will not end there. We will root out all threats....from all terrorists...and destroy them. The world shall be put on notice that we shall prevail....at any and all costs. That is to ensure the security and survival of our great nation. That is my duty as President of this nation."

[geedee]

That's a speech I could agree with. This UN business is asinine . . . and dangerous if we give up even a small piece of our sovereign right to protect the American people.

[Gabz]

Why does he suddenly pose such a threat now? Why is the threat so serious that it justifies the spending of billions of American dollars to remove him?

I'm not an expert on this kind of stuff - in fact I know nothing about it - but my answer would be 8 years of klintoon. It seems that lots of money was spent in order to appease the tyrant.

I'm a fiscal conservative - it seems to me taking him out will be less costly to us than leaving him alone.

[Gabz]

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!

[2rightsleftcoast]

I watched it and was completely disgusted.

[Leclair10]

go back to DU hove were alittle smarter then the guys over there. Do you like the label seminar
poster?

[lorrainer]

Yes, I watched it. A little like a car wreck--you just can't look away. I haven't seen anything as bad--no, wait! It was the worship piece done for Ron Kirk TWO DAYS before the election last month in Texas.

Now THAT was unbiased! /sarcasm>

[LadyDoc]

I'm not going to send my sons and daughters to Iraq to kill civilians, and perhaps be killed themselves, rather than simply take out one man (or maybe a couple).

Oh. I'm happy that your sons and daughters are part of our patriotic volunteer armed services.Let me congratulate you for your wonderful children.

Or are you under the impression that the draft still exists?

And in case you didn't notice, our armed forces are going after Sadam's army, not "innocent civilians".

Sadam can stop this in one minute: By resigning. He already has a place to go, and has sent his money ahead to prepare an escape trap. He could have stopped the sanctions in one minute, by disarming.

[LadyDoc]

Either Saddam's threat is so devastating that Bush cannot tell the world for fear of a panic

If he gets the nuclear bomb, the balance of power in the Near East changes. That is why Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are quietly allowing the US to build up their forces to attack Iraq.

And if the press is not telling us about the problem, blame the press, not Bush.

I read in last Sunday's paper that Oklahoma is almost ready with their plans for mass smallpox vaccination of the population, and that plans to vaccinate first line medical personnel will be done in the near future. The story was way in the back of the Tulsa paper.

You know, when West Nile virus was here, it was all over the papers about the vets vaccinating the horses, and why we needed to watch out for dead birds.

But few warnings about smallpox, except to the doctors. In other words, we are expecting a major smallpox epidemic, but don't scare the people.But where would smallpox come from? Anthrax is found in every barnyard, but smallpox would come from only one place: Iraq via arab terrorists.

[geedee]

klintoon? Great description!

Hey, one thing I noticed was Benedict Simon didn't say much about previous Dim-Dem administrations. I might be wrong because I quickly tuned him out but in the portion I managed to stomach he zeroed in on el Senor Bush, then GW.

I wonder if Benedict was trying to imply Dim-Dems don't fudge a bit. Like Pee Wee klintoon? Remember all the BS he gave us before he sent troops to Haiti and Somalia? I'll bet a FReeper could research klintoon's comments and reasons for going in and they would ALL be lies. klintoon favored lies even when the truth was readily available and painless -- because he knew the Benedict Simon's of the media would give him a pass.

And I think you're right -- it's definitely cheaper to kill a rat when you have him holed up than it is to try and chase down him and all his offspring later.

[KSCITYBOY]

I caught only a moment - They were saying how much the Arab would loves everything American and that they just hate our policy - My only thought was more child like liberal logic. I turned to avoid retching.

[geedee]

And in case you didn't notice, our armed forces are going after Sadam's army, not "innocent civilians".

Nicely said. To veer off the path just a second . . . North Korea's Kim, according to bleeding-hearter's figures, has already starved thousands, maybe millions, of North Korean people. But he's not blamed. The rich countries, chief among them the US of course, are responsible because we haven't GIVEN ENOUGH MOOLA AND FOOD. They always manage to skip the reports that the host tyrannical government always siphons off the money and the people still starve. Then, to compound their prejudice, the bleeding-hearters bemoan the fact that there'll be, oh my God!, collateral damage if War Imperialists like us go in to replace the despots responsible for the problem.

A heartless equation one has to consider is . . . which is better . . . to kill hundreds or even thousands by accident or, again according to the bleeding-hearter's own figures, to let millions die of malnutrition later? To me, the answer is a no-brainer. Which is why the bleeding-hearters can't answer it -- they don't have one.

Sorry my tangent was so long, but the same argument holds for Iraq. We'll never have accurate figures for how many innocent Iraqis have died at Saddam's hand. Only those countries who care about the sanctity of life, like the US, bother to count the dead. But does anyone with an open mind really believe the numbers of innocents killed if we invade will be higher than the innocent Iraqis So-damn-dumb Saddam kills on a regular basis?

[bmwcyle]

60 Minutes - Bob Simon - GW's Propoganda machine!! Did anyone watch this drivel?

NO

I don't watch network news, CNN, PMSMBC, West (east) Wing, any NBC ABC CBS morning show. I got Dishnetwork and they are easy to avoid.

[hove]

"go back to DU hove were alittle smarter then the guys over there. Do you like the label seminar poster?"

I don't know about DU. And I like it here. I agree, there are many very smart people here. I think that is why I like it here. I learn a lot! You can give me what ever label makes you feel good. I'm sure my ego can handle it. Now I obviously said something that you don't agree with. However, yout response wan't very smart. Just a bit snarky. If there are critera for acceptable posts on FR, at least have the decency to clue me in!

Cheers!

[Leclair10]

Disagreements over political ideas is what makes this country great your saying that my comments where biting well how is saying that a website which is more in line with your political philosophy then the one your currently on a biting comment. See there is a group of people who usually come in here commonly referred to as disruptors they are people who pass themselves off as being republican and conservative all their lives but after what George Bush did this time they can no longer vote for the republican party. These callers can typically be heard mornings on C-Span's Washington Journal show. People on this website have become very atuned to these things and aren't usually fooled by these wolves in sheeps clothing. Your last comment "Cheers" is commonly used by people who carry an english accent if that is you then we can just say "Oh your British" and realize you don't understand America or it's ideals.