U.S. ends search for WMD in Iraq having found none

01/26/2005 12:11:38 PM · #26

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I'm wondering if the Bush administration also payed out bribes to various news media outlets to get them to run favorable news stories for going to war with Iraq, just like they did by paying sydicated broadcaster, Armstrong Williams, to promote the No child Left Behind program. The US government paid him over a quarter of a million dollars, and big money to other broadcasters as well, so they would get out the propoganda to get the public's support for what they want to do. The government also produced prepackaged video news releases and required these broadcasters to air them as real news, which they were not. Isn't this against FCC rules?
You can read about it Here.

Interesting.
1) What is "big money"?
2) What "other broadcasters" were paid this "big money"? Name them or withdraw the accusation.
3) What broadcasters were "required" to air them as real news? Name them or withdraw the accusation.

If the accusations ARE true, then yes, it probably IS against FCC rules. But I don't think that your accusations ARE true. But you have an opportunity to prove me wrong.

01/26/2005 01:38:18 PM · #27

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Washington Post today is reporting that another journalist, sydicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, took money and had a contract with the Bush administration through the Dept. of HHS and the Justice dept., to promote the administration's initiative for marriage and a constitutional amendment to deny gay marriage. She took over $40,000 in three years to write articles and a brochure, but never disclosed this fact before.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I'm wondering if the Bush administration also payed out bribes to various news media outlets to get them to run favorable news stories for going to war with Iraq, just like they did by paying sydicated broadcaster, Armstrong Williams, to promote the No child Left Behind program. The US government paid him over a quarter of a million dollars, and big money to other broadcasters as well, so they would get out the propoganda to get the public's support for what they want to do. The government also produced prepackaged video news releases and required these broadcasters to air them as real news, which they were not. Isn't this against FCC rules?
You can read about it Here.

Interesting.
1) What is "big money"?
2) What "other broadcasters" were paid this "big money"? Name them or withdraw the accusation.
3) What broadcasters were "required" to air them as real news? Name them or withdraw the accusation.

If the accusations ARE true, then yes, it probably IS against FCC rules. But I don't think that your accusations ARE true. But you have an opportunity to prove me wrong.

Give it a break, Olyuzi. You're on a witch hunt, which, as we know, never ends until a witch is found. The article you link to says:

Originally posted by WashingtonPost:

Wade Horn, HHS assistant secretary for children and families, said his division hired Gallagher as "a well-known national expert," along with other specialists in the field, to help devise the president's healthy marriage initiative. "It's not unusual in the federal government to do that," he said.
"I don't see any comparison between what has been alleged with Armstrong Williams and what we did with Maggie Gallagher," said Horn, who founded the National Fatherhood Initiative before entering government. "We didn't pay her to write columns. We didn't pay her to promote the president's healthy marriage initiative at all. What we wanted to do was use her expertise."

By your rules, Dan Rather should have been fired many times over for interviewing people who had written books that were published by one of the Viacom companies ( a fact that he "overlooked" many times, until bloggers started exposing the "potential" conflic-of-interest.

Surely, you can see that one should not be forced to remain silent on topical issues merely because one has been paid to produce reports concerning the same issues. That's like saying that someone who is employed by Canon shouldn't be permitted to offer a personal opinion on the Canon products that he/she uses every day.

I do agree that the public's interest would be better served by revealing one's ties if even a hint of impropriety might be inferred. But, if everyone did that, then most of the media outlets, ( both liberal and conservative ) would suffer a great losl of credibility.

Message edited by author 2005-01-26 13:40:01.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

01/26/2005 01:44:22 PM · #28

The excuses that right-wing supporters make for this administration are pathetic. All pretense of intellectual and moral integrity is gone -- the fact is, that if all that has occurred over the past 4 years had occurred under Clinton, not only would he have been impeached, he would've been figuratively burnt at the stake. I say shame, shame, shame on those that continue excusing the inexcusable.

Message edited by author 2005-01-26 13:59:42.

01/26/2005 02:47:01 PM · #29

By FCC rules, what has been done without public disclosure is illegal and was even admitted as being wrong by the president today in his press conference. In regards to the Armstrong Williams incident, I believe I heard his say that people at the education dept were going to be fired because of it.

I bring up this issue of the government handing out bribes to journalists to promote their policies and initiatives in a thread about no WMDs being found in Iraq because that issue, along with the (lack of) Iraq-al Qeada connection, were the reasons that were given to the American public for an invasion of Iraq. The press had a lot to do with disseminating those faulty views and so now I ask: What manipulations of intelligence and the news media did the administration perpetrate in order to persuade the American public that it was in our interest to go to war with Iraq? Whom else did they bribe? What other VNRs were produced and aired by the media that were faulty? Noam Chomsky calls this "manufacturing consent."

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury regarding his sexual exploits in the White House, but no lives were lost. Should the same standard of integrity not be applied to the current president and his administration where there is excessive loss of life? There are other misrepresentations as well, such as the cost of war, and medicare. Despite the rhetoric of freedom and human rights of Bush's inauguration speech, it's easy to see why he refuses to join the International Criminal Court.

Interesting that you've accused me of a "witch hunt" but don't apply that term to Bush going after WMDs and links with al Qaeda that didn't exist.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Washington Post today is reporting that another journalist, sydicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, took money and had a contract with the Bush administration through the Dept. of HHS and the Justice dept., to promote the administration's initiative for marriage and a constitutional amendment to deny gay marriage. She took over $40,000 in three years to write articles and a brochure, but never disclosed this fact before.

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I'm wondering if the Bush administration also payed out bribes to various news media outlets to get them to run favorable news stories for going to war with Iraq, just like they did by paying sydicated broadcaster, Armstrong Williams, to promote the No child Left Behind program. The US government paid him over a quarter of a million dollars, and big money to other broadcasters as well, so they would get out the propoganda to get the public's support for what they want to do. The government also produced prepackaged video news releases and required these broadcasters to air them as real news, which they were not. Isn't this against FCC rules?
You can read about it Here.

Interesting.
1) What is "big money"?
2) What "other broadcasters" were paid this "big money"? Name them or withdraw the accusation.
3) What broadcasters were "required" to air them as real news? Name them or withdraw the accusation.

If the accusations ARE true, then yes, it probably IS against FCC rules. But I don't think that your accusations ARE true. But you have an opportunity to prove me wrong.

Give it a break, Olyuzi. You're on a witch hunt, which, as we know, never ends until a witch is found. The article you link to says:

Originally posted by WashingtonPost:
Wade Horn, HHS assistant secretary for children and families, said his division hired Gallagher as "a well-known national expert," along with other specialists in the field, to help devise the president's healthy marriage initiative. "It's not unusual in the federal government to do that," he said.
"I don't see any comparison between what has been alleged with Armstrong Williams and what we did with Maggie Gallagher," said Horn, who founded the National Fatherhood Initiative before entering government. "We didn't pay her to write columns. We didn't pay her to promote the president's healthy marriage initiative at all. What we wanted to do was use her expertise."

By your rules, Dan Rather should have been fired many times over for interviewing people who had written books that were published by one of the Viacom companies ( a fact that he "overlooked" many times, until bloggers started exposing the "potential" conflic-of-interest.

Surely, you can see that one should not be forced to remain silent on topical issues merely because one has been paid to produce reports concerning the same issues. That's like saying that someone who is employed by Canon shouldn't be permitted to offer a personal opinion on the Canon products that he/she uses every day.

I do agree that the public's interest would be better served by revealing one's ties if even a hint of impropriety might be inferred. But, if everyone did that, then most of the media outlets, ( both liberal and conservative ) would suffer a great losl of credibility.

Message edited by author 2005-01-26 15:46:04.

01/26/2005 05:18:43 PM · #30

Originally posted by bdobe:

Since this retort followed my post so closely, is it reasonable for one to assume that you were implying that 1) I am a right-wing supporter, 2) that I am making excuses for this administration, 3) that I have no pretense of intellectual and moral integrity? Just asking, - 'cause it SEEMS that that is what you are implying.

MadMordegon

01/26/2005 09:59:59 PM · #31

(short movie - warning graphic content)

As a dog returns to his vomit,
So shall a fool repeat his folly.

Proverbs 26.11

01/29/2005 12:51:59 AM · #32

Sorry Ron, I know you don't want to hear it, but here's another answer to your questions below.
From CBS News.com:

"Also Wednesday, the House Committee on Government Reform released a report on the use of taxpayer dollars for public relations campaigns. It found the administration spent a record $88 million on government-funded public relations contracts in 2004 � more than double the amount spent in 2000, according to the report prepared for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other Democrats."

88 million dollars is a lot of money to spend on public relations and I would wager a lot of it was spent on PR for the war. As the article above points out, there will be investigations into the PR efforts of the government and these unethical media pundits. Hopefully, they will dig deep enough to uncover the real story of how the American public was duped into supporting the war in Iraq.

Originally posted by RonB:

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

01/29/2005 04:10:57 PM · #33

Interesting indeed. Tell me again how CBS and CNN are not BIASED!. The article you link to says in its OWN words ( read editorial ) that

"The developments follow the disclosure that syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher was being paid $21,500 by the Health and Human Services Department to push the White House's $300 million initiative to encourage marriage." ( emphasis mine ).

BUT

HHS assistant agency head Wade Horn HIMSELF ( the one who authorized payment ) is quoted as saying something quite different, namely:

Horn said Wednesday that Gallagher was never paid to promote the president's marriage initiative in her own columns..."At no time was she paid to go outside of HHS and promote the president's healthy marriage initiative," he said. ( again, emphasis mine ).

After the liberal media claimed that a third columnist, Mike McManus, was "paid to push policy ( lead-in by CNN ),

"Health and Human Services' Horn stressed McManus was not paid to write favorably to about the administration. Still, he said, HHS has now implemented a rule to prohibit the use of outside consultants or contractors who have any connection with the press.

"There's a growing misperception that taxpayers' money is being used to pay columnists to use their position in the media to portray the administration in a positive light," Horn said. "I felt a compelling need to draw a bright line in order to restore the public's confidence that we are not doing that"

I STILL don't know why you can't seem to tolerate the exercise of free speech by conservative commentators. Do you honestly believe that ALL of them are being paid to say what they do?

Do you really believe that all liberal commentators always flatly refuse to ever write articles, speeches, material for web-sites or brochures, etc., for pay, simply because the content might just happen to reflect what they publicly endorse?

Would you expect Kentucy Fried Chicken hire a member of PETA to produce a commercial promoting their Chicken? And, if they hired someone who actually LOVED KFC Chicken, instead, would you expect them to require that person to NEVER, EVER talk about how much they liked KFC, merely because thay had been paid to produce a commercial.

I would think that such requirements would be a clear violation of the first amendment.

Maybe that's why I'm NOT suprised that you would take the position you do. Most liberals really DON'T believe in first amendment rights for conservatives.

By the way, my question concerned what other broadcasters were paid "big bucks" so that they would ( in your words ) "get out the propoganda". It would appear that Ms. Gallagher was NOT paid to "get out the propaganda" according to the one who paid her. Rather, she was paid as any contracted author would be. It appears that you have a problem with that. ( But probably wouldn't if she were endorsing liberal viewpoints ).

An amusing read, as always.

Message edited by author 2005-01-29 16:34:33.

Brock

Canon PowerShot Pro1

01/29/2005 05:44:35 PM · #34

WMD has been found just not in the massive stockpiles of agents, precursors or weaponized formas as expected. Sarin, mustard and others have been found in mortars in various locations. Precursor compounds have been found...so saying NONE were found is not entirely accurate.

If the items were destroyed as claimed then why hide how you destroyed them and where you destroyed them? Many in and outside the US believe they were buried and moved to friendly countries for storage...who knows but he had them in the past in vast quantities...he used them in both the IRAN-IRAQ war and against the Kurds in the north of Iraq with deadly results...so saying no WMD found is like saying JONESTOWN never happened just because the kool-aid was all gone by the time we arrived.

mrorange002

Canon EOS-5D

01/29/2005 06:29:50 PM · #35

maybe the US should start the search for WMD in the "receipts" file at the pentagon?

David Ey

Nikon D80

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

01/29/2005 06:57:20 PM · #36

The secret formula for WMD was given to China by Bill Clinton for unknown consideration.

frychikn

Olympus C-5050Z

01/29/2005 07:43:54 PM · #37

Originally posted by ericlimon:

maybe the US should start the search for WMD in the "receipts" file at the pentagon?

You forgot to show the picture of Jesse Jackson shaking hands with saddam hussein on national TV shortly AFTER the Iraqui invasion of Kuwait.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

01/29/2005 09:23:35 PM · #38

Originally posted by frychikn:

Originally posted by ericlimon:
maybe the US should start the search for WMD in the "receipts" file at the pentagon?

You forgot to show the picture of Jesse Jackson shaking hands with saddam hussein on national TV shortly AFTER the Iraqui invasion of Kuwait.

You're missing one important point FryChickn, Jesse Jackson could not have sold Saddam Huessein chemical weapons; whereas Donald Rumsfeld, as part of the Reagan administration, did facilitate the sale of chemical weapons to Huessein. It's not about the hand-shake, in case it needs to spelled out for some: it's about the hypocrisy of the people involved -- it was Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al that created the monster, and it's Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al (the same people), under different administrations, that lied to us all, have gotten thousands of peopled killed, all the while trying to clean up the mess they created to start with.

I'm still in shock at the number of people that continue to defend the indefensible: We've been lied to, our fellow citizens (and thousands of other people in Iraq and elsewhere) have died because of this administration. And, still, for national pride, and out of sense of misplaced party-loyalty, many of my fellow Americans continue to support these men and their lies: I find this incredible.

Message edited by author 2005-01-29 21:25:39.

Fujifilm XF 18-55mm f/2.8-4 OIS

01/29/2005 10:02:28 PM · #39

Originally posted by bdobe:

Originally posted by frychikn:

Originally posted by ericlimon:
maybe the US should start the search for WMD in the "receipts" file at the pentagon?

You forgot to show the picture of Jesse Jackson shaking hands with saddam hussein on national TV shortly AFTER the Iraqui invasion of Kuwait.

You're missing one important point FryChickn, Jesse Jackson could not have sold Saddam Huessein chemical weapons; whereas Donald Rumsfeld, as part of the Reagan administration, did facilitate the sale of chemical weapons to Huessein. It's not about the hand-shake, in case it needs to spelled out for some: it's about the hypocrisy of the people involved -- it was Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al that created the monster, and it's Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al (the same people), under different administrations, that lied to us all, have gotten thousands of peopled killed, all the while trying to clean up the mess they created to start with.

I'm still in shock at the number of people that continue to defend the indefensible: We've been lied to, our fellow citizens (and thousands of other people in Iraq and elsewhere) have died because of this administration. And, still, for national pride, and out of sense of misplaced party-loyalty, many of my fellow Americans continue to support these men and their lies: I find this incredible.

And I'm NOT shocked that the ABB crowd continue to repeat ad-nauseum that "we've been lied to" when time and time and time again they have been unwilling, or, better, unable to document a single lie. To me, THEIR stand is no longer incredible. Rather, it is just more of the expected innuendo without a factual foundation that constitutes their stock in trade.

docpjv

Fujifilm X-E1

01/29/2005 10:10:11 PM · #40

Who said.. "divide and rule"? I am not an American and definately not anti America, I will never be able to deny what a great nation it is.

Sadly I'm wondering how long before we say "what a great nation it was..."? Warmongering leaders never did any nation good, look at history and know that history never fails to repeat herself.

Politics is such a dirty game... such an expensive game.. such a futile game.

mrorange002

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

01/30/2005 12:21:40 PM · #41

Originally posted by frychikn:

You forgot to show the picture of Jesse Jackson shaking hands with saddam hussein on national TV shortly AFTER the Iraqui invasion of Kuwait.

For some odd reason, i very much doubt that jesse Jackson has or had anything to do with government policy in Iraq.

But, I think that Special Envoy to President Ronald Regan, Donald Rumsfeld (and now Secretary of Defense) probably has a lot to do with government policy in Iraq.

mrorange002

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

01/30/2005 12:38:42 PM · #42

Originally posted by RonB:

And I'm NOT shocked that the ABB crowd continue to repeat ad-nauseum that "we've been lied to" when time and time and time again they have been unwilling, or, better, unable to document a single lie.

Quote George Bush �We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." State of the Union Address � 1/28/2003

Lie
Not a single aerial vehicle capable of dispersing chemical or biological weapons, has been found anywhere in Iraq

Quote George Bush "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites." Bush speech to the nation � 10/7/2002

Lie
Two months of inspections at these former Iraqi nuclear sites found zero evidence of prohibited nuclear activities there - IAEA report to UN Security Council � 1/27/2003

Quote George Bush "We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in." Bush Press Conference 7/14/2003

Lie
UN inspectors went into Iraq to search for possible weapons violations from December 2002 into March 2003 and were told by the US government to get out before the bombs start dropping

Wait, lets blame it on the intelligence! Well, if a ship sinks, it's it's the captains fault. As "Commander in Chief" the president of the good ol' USA is responsible for what he presents to the nation and the world. Better get his facts straight, unless he want's to be called a liar.

Or maybe blame it on the speech writer? since Georgy doesn't even write his own speeches, maybe there is some "evil element" at work, puting these words on paper, and George doesn't even look at what's writen before reading it to the nation?

That must be it, cause the President wouldn't lie, now would he?

MadMordegon

01/30/2005 01:53:39 PM · #43

Originally posted by ericlimon:

That must be it, cause the President wouldn't lie, now would he?

No of course not; when the person becomes president he turns into a saint. Didn�t you know that Eric? Jeez.

This could explain alot of that thinking though, The Seperate Realities of Bush and Kerry Supporters

On a side note, its great to see Fox news up to there same game regarding him: Fair And Balanced

I wonder how much armor could be bought for our troops with the 40 million dollars he spent on his multiple parties.

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

01/30/2005 02:08:42 PM · #44

I am glad the Iraqi�s got the chance to vote today. ;)

eggv

Canon EOS-1D Mark IIn

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

01/30/2005 02:12:09 PM · #45

So are we John!

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

01/30/2005 02:32:27 PM · #46

Sometimes politics gets in the way to what is right. It is very sad. I was against the war before it started but now with all the loss of life on both sides and the atrocities found I can only hope they will seek freedom. They deserve it as much as anyone on this planet. I also realize if it works itself out over there, there will be a bunch of (liberals) that will be upset, amazingly. They will deny it I�m sure but will endlessly find fault with every little minuet aspect of the transition.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

01/30/2005 05:18:05 PM · #47

Originally posted by jmritz:

It's more than "politics" that gets in the way of what's right and good: blind nationalism, is often at a greater fault for much of the evil that's ever been perpetuated -- on all sides. Many Americans are finding easy to unquestionably swallow this administration's lies because Bush & Co. have managed to tie American nationalism with support for the administration, support for their catastrophic policies, and with the memory of 9/11.

I'm always amazed at how so many of my fellow Americans fall into line so easily, and so readily repeat whatever the slogan of the day is. What's the rule of advertisement, oh, yes: repetition, repetition, repetition... Freedom, freedom, freedom... Bush said the word 27 times during his inaugural, and went on to say in so many words that his administration would topple regimes to establish "freedom." So, of course, many close observes of politics thought, Well, here's a new Bush Doctrine and a new American policy. Not so fast, Bush Senior said, as he was sent before the cameras the following day to explain that his son was merely metaphorically speaking, and not spelling out anything concrete.

Now, of course, it is clear that Bush's intent was to create a new excuse/reason, for having gone to war: First, it was weapons of mass destruction; then, it became terrorism; then, Bush said that Saddam Hussein was an evil man; and now, it's freedom. Of course, what we have here is just another excuse to rationalize the Iraqi invasion. Bush's repetitive use of the word "freedom" is nothing more than the latest slogan his supporters can rattle off to rationalize the war.

I wonder, what would have happened if at the state of the union speech where Bush said that Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs that threatened America, Bush had instead said, "We will invade Iraq, and a year and a half after the invasion 1,500 of your sons and daughters will have been killed; another 10,000 to 20,000 of them will have been wounded -- many of them irreparably damaged for the rest of their lives; it'll cost you, the American tax-payer an initial $200 billion dollars, and another $80 billion dollars a year and a half later; and, yes, we will remain in that part of world for many years to come -- yes, this is a generational endeavor. Finally, you may be asking, why are we going, well, we're invading Iraq to bring'em "Freedom" -- we're going there to nation build. I wonder how many of Bush's supporters would've lined up to volunteer themselves for that cause? Remember, many of Bush's supporters had long-been the most outspoken anti-"nation building" critics in the political landscape. Furthermore, many of them had long criticized what they considered the irresponsible and un-planned use of our military; and now, of course, out of blind-nationalism and party loyalty, many of them readily utter the latest slogan to come out of this administration: Freedom.

I, personally, as a former Marine and as an American, cannot pardon the irresponsible miss use of our military by the Bush administration. As an American, I cannot forgive their lies about WMD, nor their lies about the alleged links between Al Quada and Saddam Hussein... I know the Bush administration had lied to me about matters of life and death, and for that I will never forgive them.

Message edited by author 2005-01-30 17:18:25.

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

01/30/2005 07:19:58 PM · #48

Now that the left has destroyed the meaning of the word FREEDOM we have nowhere to go do we? You will blame it on Bush I�m sure but I believe he understands the meaning of the word and hopes to help in his way but you will presume to know he is wrong and has some diabolical reasons, motives behind what he does. He was called Dubya the dummy just a few years ago and now he is one of the most cunning diabolical villains in history. You know, sorry I�m not buying it.
I am a Viet Nam Vet. I went to war after being drafted. I did not want to go period but I went and came back and some of my friends never did come back. I�ve had my issues with our government at times. Please do not blame Bush on that war.
bdobe that speech Bush gave scared the heck out of me. It was aimed at the people who are scared of him, that I understand and it would have sounded better to my ears if he would lighten the rhetoric. Hillary will be President one day and all this will be history. I still just hope Iraq can find some sort of freedom (sorry I used the word now that it means nothing).

frychikn

Olympus C-5050Z

01/30/2005 07:36:46 PM · #49

Originally posted by jmritz:

The Chicago White Sox will win the world series before Hillary becomes president. Condelezza perhaps, Hillary never.