Re: Why I don’t mourn Walter Cronkite

TV Arts

From the same article we are reminded that Cronkite had a team. And who

Things to be considered.

The internet is worse than main stream media.  It's filled with half 
truths and outright lies at times, and no one to check it all. The 
internet allows every radical the same voice as the moderate.
Yeah.  It's called free speech and free press.  But really it's no
different than the TV media which presents lies & half-truths and then
claims to be "unbiased" even though they clearly are biased (in favor
of more and bigger government).

I'd rather hear both sides of an issue (yes even the radicals), than
have a monopolistic TV media that only presents one side.
Isn't that the way it *should* be?

Isn't that what America is all about: a free market of ideas in which
the value of each idea is determined by the marketplace.

Or would you prefer draconian censorship by an unelected elite?
I'm starting FDR's news service.  It'll be all about how Major Debacle 
is a druggy child molester.  Now if enough people subscribe to that news 
does that make it a highly valued idea?
The public is easily fooled sometimes.  They think that we didnt land on 
the moon or that there's WND in Iraq.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. 
is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998-Truth!
This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the
Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998-Truth!
Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top
military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
His remarks followed that briefing.

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998-Truth!
This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State 
by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-Truth!
This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline 

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the
U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of 
destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, 
Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-Truth!
According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed 
several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John
McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and 
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998-Truth!
The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional

"Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999-Truth!
This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and
criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting
into the country.  Albright said, "There has never been an embargo 
food and medicine. It's just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend 
money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building 
of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies."

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, 
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover 
of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
December 5, 2001Truth!
The only letter with this quote from December 5, 2001 that we could find 
not include the participation of Senator Bob Graham, but it was signed 
other senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman.
It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the 
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-Truth!
These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!
This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San
Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam 
is in
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-Truth!

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and 
weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-Truth!
Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical 
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002-Truth!
On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would
authorize using force against Iraq.
He was urging caution about going to war and commented that even though
there was confidence about the weapons in Iraq, there had not been the 
to take military action for a number of years and he asked why there 
be the need at that point.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the 
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a 
and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002-Truth!
Senator Kerry's comments were made to the Senate as part of the same 
over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working 
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within 
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass 
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Rockefeller's statements were a part of the debate over using 
against Saddam Hussein.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, 
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy 
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do" Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Waxman's contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show 
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has 
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda 
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will 
to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and 
keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002-Truth!
Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein but said she 
not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a 
grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ...
And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit 
his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003-Truth!
In a speech to Georgetown University.

Snickering over the many dead that were caused by Bush's war?  Go spit 
on a Marines grave while you're at it.
Almost all of those statements are either surgically edited, taken out
of context or both. If the right invested as much time in telling the
truth as they invest in sounding like they're telling the truth,
they'd be formidable.
All based on the doctored CIA reports provided to them-LIES
And that Elvis is alive.
Nope, most obviously with the lies.

The lies arent part of that.

The alternatives are more than black and white.

But that's not how it works.

The reality is that on unchecked media like the Internet, the
extremist voices tend to drown out more moderate voices.  That is, the
few extremeists tend to be much more vocal than the majority of
moderates, giving a distorted and unrepresentive portrait.

The result is that a distorted message goes out and we get Columbines
as a result, or everday people get bored and disaffected and tune out

No one ever suggested that.
What are you suggesting, handcock?
Yes, but the net aint what determines a damned thing.

Yes, but the portrait is completely irrelevant.

Yes, but that has no effect on anything at all.

Like hell we do. Those arent the result of what ends up on the net.

Yes, but that doesnt matter because there is always a hell of a lot more than the net.
So you are blaming Columbine on the internet and because *you* think
that the internet caused Columbine you want the internet censored.

You're despicable.

Move to the Soviet Union.

Oh wait, the Soviet Union collapsed.

Move to Saudi Arabia or China.

I'm pretty sure they both censor the internet.
Wasn't Rockwell that coward who was afraid to fight in Vietnam
preferring to chearlead  from the comfort of home?  He's a self
confessed fringe blowhard whose opinions are laughed at by anyone who
Then over some *alternative*, you pea-brained kneejerk mass of quivering
No need for one. The net is completely irrelevant to what matters.