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

CBS News | 12/7/2002 | Bob Simon

[geedee]

60 Minutes' Bob Simon just did a slash and burn piece on how the Bush Administration is "lying" and "exagerating" and using "propoganda" to justify an unjustifiable war with Iraq.

[Balata]

There are many dozens of facts that support President Bush's decision to go or not to go to war with Iraq. When a highly suspect left wing reporter can refute one or two of those it doesn't discredit the perponderance of the evidence.

Mr. Bush and his team have access to much more in the way of intelligence about Iraq from multiple sources than Bob Simon could ever hope to. Please take Bob Simon with a grain of salt. He spent 40 days behind the enemy lines in Bagdad with Saddam during the first Gulf War. Guys like Saddam are very good at using left wing sympathizers with over blown egos for their own progaganda.

[rimtop56]

Thanks for your encouragement. I've asked him many times if we could agree not to discuss politics, but it has not worked, and seems to be getting worse. I've been getting better at sometimes ignoring him, but at other times I get so mad I answer back. I just need to remember that it's useless, but it's extremely difficult.

Thanks again.

[Balata]

One additional thought. When a reporter does a story it is with hindsight and prejudice. IOW's he is in a position to spin or color the story. On the other hand, the principles in the story are dealing with best available evidence at the time. I hope this helps. Good Luck.

[The Great Satan]

Click for an interesting look at how the Nazis handled the same problems Saddam is wrestling with today.

[geedee]

David Albright says . . . administration officials “were selectively picking information to bolster a case that the Iraqi nuclear threat was more imminent than it is, and, in essence, scare people.”

Interesting. I did a quick online search. On August 6, 2002, Mr. Albright wrote a piece for The Guardian. He wrote . . . You would think that if Iraq had a nuclear weapon, it would have done something to show it. But then you can't be certain. Another factor that increases the uncertainty is that Iraq is well aware that Russian controls on nuclear material are terrible, and is excellent at illicit procurement. It works with insiders, it doesn't deal with middlemen, and it has a fighting chance of getting highly enriched uranium and not being discovered. Once it gets the gas-centrifuge programme, you have to assume that it could make [a bomb] in half a year. That sounds pretty scary to me. Granted, I don't know a gas-centrifuge from sic 'em but he admits no one really knows what Iraq has been doing. You can read this entire article at . . . http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0%2C2763%2C769816%2C00.html

Then I found an article written by By David Albright & Kevin O'Neill, Fall-Winter 2001 where they wrote . . . Expert opinions regarding how close Iraq may be to acquiring nuclear weapons are uncertain and vary from a few months to several years, depending on the scenario. The most optimistic projection is offered by the U.S. government, which according to Einhorn, views Iraq as not capable of indigenously building a nuclear explosive for at least five years from early 2001.*46 Former Action Team Leader Dillon argues that as of 1998, Iraq would have needed "five years, plus or minus two years" to enrich sufficient uranium and produce a nuclear explosive. However, he adds that Iraq would need only "one year, plus or minus one year" to build a nuclear explosive if it secretly acquired enough fissile material or, in the extreme, a functional nuclear weapon.*47 ISIS's own assessment concluded that, as of late 1998, Iraq needed two to seven years to enrich enough uranium for a first nuclear device.*48 If Iraq should acquire fissile material abroad, ISIS estimated that it could assemble a nuclear explosive in less than one year.*49 Again, pretty scary stuff to me. http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/cns-miis-albright-2001.htm

Then in May/June 1998, in an article titled Masters of deception, Mr. Albright wrote . . . The stakes are high. Inspectors believe that Iraq could reconstitute its nuclear weapons program quickly, once sanctions are lifted. Although Iraq might need several years to recreate its enriched-uranium or plutonium programs, it might be able to acquire fissile material on the black market. In that case, it has already learned enough to be able to build a nuclear weapon in less than a year. As a result, Iraq’s nuclear potential must be carefully scrutinized by international inspectors for some time to come. http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1998/mj98/mj98albright.html

Maybe it's just me, but the above articles seem to disagree with what Mr. Albright said on 60 Minutes tonight.

[mj1234]

There is a reason why GWBUSH has high approval numbers-
and why I support him. The DemonRat party KNEW that weapons
of mass destruction were being made by the axis of evil.
North Korea has them and are supplying the expertise to
other dictatorships THE NORTH KOREANS HAVE ADMITTED TO BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!! never mind, I guess I will
listen in on the DEMONRAT TRAITORS and their willing press
stooges explain how we are the war mongers, and Bush is
the dunce leading us down to destruction--

[anncoulteriscool]

TemperBay signed up 2002-09-30.

[The_Media_never_lie]

exagerating should be exaggerating.

Surely you must be exagggerating!

[hove]

I missed it. However, the fact is, Bush has done a piss poor job of making his case. I am for removing Saddam. Heck, I wanted Papa Bush to finish the job in Gulf War I. But W. obviously hasn't explained to the American people, let alone the people of the world, why now. I hear about Saddam having WMD's. Well I wonder where he got them. 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? Not to mention the risk of reprisal from Saddam or those who sympathize with Saddam. And possibly with the very same WMD's. Well, we hear the same old stories about how this tyrant gassed his own people. Hey....been there....done that! Here is the plain truth. If Bush had information that Saddam posed a threat that was immediate and potentially mortal in nature to the U.S.A.....or Israel...then there would be little debate. The world...and America....who will bear the brunt of the cost in dollars and lives....would be in lock step to proceed in destoying Saddam and his apparatus. The sad truth is that one of two realities exist. Either Saddam's threat is so devastating that Bush cannot tell the world for fear of a panic.....or Bush doesn't really have the goods on Saddam. Neither one of these scenarios is very pretty.

[etabeta]

Your husband reminds me of mine. He hated Clinton with a passion and now he hates Bush equally. Every day is the same litany but he gets no satisfaction from me, I let him talk to the wall. When I get tired of listening, I tell him that he can talk until his last breath and still won't change my mind, I respect his opinion but I am entitled to mine. I believe that if you don't let him push your buttons (and it takes work to achieve that)you can keep the peace in the house. Oh, by the way, my sons think like their father, that's why I don't talk politics with them either, fortunately there are gazillion of other things we can talk about. Hope you succeed, it's worth the work, in the end it will benefit you. Regards.

[RogueIsland]

I'm watching Charlie Brown's Christmas, so, no.

A good choice. It has more meaning and better values than an entire season of 60 Minutes.

[Gun142]

Has the Bush Administration lied to America about this fisaco in the middel-east? Yes!

Specifically, what has Bush lied about and where did you find your information to make such a claim?

Has the Bush Administration exaggerated facts? Yes!

Specifically, what has Bush exaggerated about and where did you find your information to make such a claim?

Has the Bush Administration used propaganda to stir Americans to war? Yes!

Specifically, what propaganda has Bush used and where did you find your information to make such a claim?

Is a war with Iraq justifiable? No!

The focus of a war in Iraq would be to destroy weapons of mass destruction intended for use by means of terrorism, not defense. After which, with UN resolution, there will no doubt be a push for a regime change.
You believe it's not justifiable for Saddam's weapons to be destroyed?

[iconoclast]

Gedouda here with that common sense! ;o)

[Arpege92]

There has to be more to this bias media attacking a Republican president....Could it be "PAYOFFS"? Why do you think the liberal media would spread such Crap when most American's support Bush.

[Turbodog]

"Maybe it's just me, but the above articles seem to disagree with what Mr. Albright said on 60 Minutes tonight."

Maybe Mr. Albright's opinion is for sale to the highest bidder!

[johnb838]

lied about babies being pulled out of incubators

Like this is all Sodom's thugs did! What about the rapes? The murders? The disapearances? The FREAKING BURNING OIL FIELDS!!!! THE MASSIVE OIL SLICK ECOLOGICAL DISASTER!!! (remember that?)

Simon makes me want to puke.

[Draakan]

TemperBay is an idiot.

Keep your powder dry,
The time is near at hand.

[CyberAnt]

We need to start a prayer thread - whatever happened to the one we used to have in praying for the President every day?? Maybe we need to have one about the war only! We need to speak words of victory and not defeat; words of good outcomes, instead of loss of life; our prayers could put a stop to this stuff.

[CyberAnt]

The very best source is www.rushlimbaugh.com

Rush really tells it like it is. When the dems begin their lying, he exposes all the lies and then some; usually with a lot of humor.