| -Caveat Lector-
I only posted this so we could watch and see if CBS was
stupid enough to walk into this trap even with the "warning" from Insight. Given
CBS's track record, anything anti-Bush from them, truthful or not,. will be
considered a "hit" piece, They brought it on themselves.
JR
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 12:46 AM
Subject: Re: [CTRL] CBS Planning Another Anti-Bush Hit
Job?
-Caveat
Lector-
|
So now any critical examination of
Dumbya's regime by CBS will be an "anti-Bush hit
job?"
Better tell that to Viacom head
honcho Sumner Redstone, a Bushite and owner of CBS, that his
network is being mean to the boy president. Maybe he'll even tell
their mommies to lay off the moron.
Bill.
-------Original Message-------
Date: 09/24/04
23:39:05
Subject: [CTRL] CBS
Planning Another Anti-Bush Hit Job?
Insight on the News - Politics
Issue:
9/20/04
CBS Planning Another
Anti-Bush Hit Job?By
Cliff Kincaid
The CBS
scandal gets worse every day. Now, in an amazing twist, Michael Isikoff of
Newsweek was on Chris Matthews' MSNBC "Hardball" show last Wednesday night
claiming that CBS had been planning to air a story about the White House
using forged documents to make the case for war against Iraq.
CBS,
reportedly, postponed the story so it could go on the air attacking
President Bush on the National Guard issue. It backfired when 60 Minutes
itself got caught using forged documents. Still, Isikoff indicates that 60
Minutes is planning to air the anti-Bush piece, perhaps as early as Sunday
night, September 26.
here is only one big problem-the anti-Bush
story, as described by Isikoff and eagerly embraced by Democrat partisan
Matthews, is completely false. It's as phony as those National Guard
documents.
The Iraq-uranium link, the subject of much media
misinformation, has been documented and confirmed by authoritative reports
from Britain's Lord Butler, who had been a cabinet secretary under five
different Prime Ministers, and the Senate Intelligence
Committee.
In an article on the Newsweek
website, Isikoff claims that 60 Minutes had originally planned to run a
story about "how the U.S. government was snookered by forged documents
purporting to show Iraqi efforts to purchase uranium from
Niger."
Isikoff says the story, narrated by CBS correspondent Ed
Bradley, "asked tough questions about how the White House came to embrace
the fraudulent documents and why administration officials chose to include
a 16-word reference to the questionable uranium purchase in President
Bush's 2003 State of the Union."
Isikoff says 60 Minutes has been
working on the story for more than six months.
It is amazing that,
18 months after Bush uttered those 16 words, Isikoff, 60 Minutes, and
Chris Matthews still can't or won't get the story straight.
Bush's famous 16 words were: "The British Government has learned
that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from
Africa." Bush never said that Saddam "purchased" uranium.
While
the Bush administration mishandled the controversy under a media assault
and even backed away from what the President said, subsequent
investigations confirm that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium from
Africa.
Lord Butler's July 14, 2004, report called Bush's words
"well-founded." It reported that,
"a) It is accepted by all parties
that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.
"b) The British
Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that
this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium
constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was
credible.
"c) The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq purchased,
as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not
claim this.
"d) The forged documents were not available to the
British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of
the forgery does not undermine it."
FactCheck.org, a group headed
by former CNN and Wall Street Journal reporter Brooks Jackson, examined
the controversy and declared, "Both the Butler report and the Senate
Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't
based on the fake documents. The British didn't even see them until after
issuing the reports-based on other sources-that Bush quoted in his 16
words."
Ironically, one of th
|
Let us
please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A
HREF="">ctrl</A>
======================================================================== To
subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL
[to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF
CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om ODY>
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
|
