werd

How does the person holding the microphone while Drumheller talks affect the credibility of what Drumheller says?

This wasn't some piece of investigative journalism, it was an iterview for god's sake! The only credibility on the line is Drumheller's.

Geez

Are you kidding me? Do you think holding the mic is all they do? You may wanna read the credits; something about a producer, researcher, etc.

I was making a point. It's an interview. The only important thing that comes out of it is the interviewee's statements. Disregard the rest.

Uh no. There is always plenty that comes out of the interviewee's mouth which is cut.

So you are accusing 60 Minutes of "cherry picking" his statements to advance some cause?

That's good! Sounds familiar :)

(Of course, that he has not objected to unfair editing is irrelevant to the "let's bash 60 minutes" mindset).

I don't know what 60 Min. did in this particular interview. But they've surely done it enough in the past to make me no longer watch their show. Besides, I haven't watched any network tv in years. I don't even know which channel CBS is on my cable box.

I actually don't disagree with you about 60 Minutes ... but sorry, an interview is an interview. If a journalist unfairly edits it, we'll hear about it from the interviewee.

Just not on 60 Minutes. I don't think they have ever fessed up to any of their many breaches of journalistic principle with the same fanfare with which they present the original story. They have provided the on-air equivelant of the "D" section page 20 under the legal notices newspaper retraction, however.

Reminds me of the poor kid Michael Moore "interviewed" for Fahrenhype 451; the severely injured one. He put a lot of effort into getting his real message out, which included the facts that he had been duped and his statements heavily edited. To the point where his own words did not express his feelings at all, but rather Michael Moore's. Whom he had never met, by the way.

I'm not saying that happened here. CBS certainly has lost all credibility, however. Couple that with a man who would like to make some money on a book deal, and, well...

CBS and credibility should never be in the same sentence.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1145914328.gif

The evidence of cherry picking intelligence to justify a course of action that had been long decided is overwhelming.

Every time a new face or fact pops up that confirms this, he or she or it is knocked down by the true believers.

From Woodward's book, where it was disclosed that almost immediately after 9/11 Bush focused on Iraq, to Richard Clark, to the new book Cobra II, which details a December 2000 meeting between Bush and Clinton where Bush indicated that Iraq was one or two major foreign policy issues, it could not be clearer that Iraq was in the gun sights from day one.

At this point, something like 70% of the country understands this.

Wow. Are we really down to 30% that can think for themselves?

Yes Jeff. And I think I know most of them.

The ones who could think for themselves objected to this Iraq war at the outset. The rest of the populace fell in line behind the false reasons given by this administration.

It's funny that the same claque was so happy about the popular vote going to Bush in the last election. At that time, it was the 'wisdom of the majority.' Well, now it's a super majority who clearly see the folly of this small man and his toadies.

Here are a few of your fellow 'self thinkers'.

GT, is it really necessary to use extremism to make your predetermined point?

The dwindling supporters are so desperate, and more than a little pathetic ... it's amazing to me what some people will go through to avoid saying "I was mistaken."

Iraq falls to Muslim extremists on the lives of our serviceman and the pocketbooks of our children, the WMDs are never found, the links to al Queda never existed, yet they cannot say those three simple words.

Sad.

I can say them Rodeo - "You Are Wrong".

Maybe that would be a good question to ask those people in the photos. From what I've read on the Daily Kos and liberal blogs, and what I've seen in video/still images of protests around the country, these people are fairly 'mainstream'.

If it was me, I'd be embarrassed to admit that I shared a common political thought process with these people.