COmments by retired CIA operative
 

Here is one certain to be interesting:

What is your take on Tyler Drumheller, the retired CIA agent interviewed today on "60 Minutes"?

Ahh, he waited to b!tch until after he retired. Must be someone to discredit. ;)

Bob, don't you know the Bushistas don't watch "60 Minutes?"

I doubt this guy will get much coverage on Fox.

And anyway, the latest story is that we invaded Iraq to "stop genocide."

I thought we invaded to ensure every Iraqi that wants it, can have fluoridated water.

I thought it was so women could vote............................or........or...... .or

Well, we know for sure it wasn't for "nation building" because candidate Bush opposed nation building.

I find it amusing that most of these "experts" on TV seem to have retired from the Clinton administration.

Do you actually watch 60 minutes and believe what you see? I would be surprised if you do.

I think that people--of any political stripe--watch 60 Minutes only until they see an episode that covers a topic they know something about. Then they see how shallow and misleading it is, and they stop watching. For me it was the Audi "unintended accelleration" episode. If they're so misleading about one topic, how can you trust them on any other topic?

We're still waiting (anxiously) for the Bush administration talking heads to retire. They're finally starting to trickle out.

BTW, 60 minutes is 59.5 minutes too long. And Fox "News" isn't.

That's it exactly! How many times do you have to catch See-BS working their propaganda before you realize that it's probably ALL BS?

The Audi story was definitely a hatchet job but that was 20 years ago. I think they (60 Minutes) got suckered by some smart attorneys.

The Alar on apples story got me...See BS at it's best.

I think they get suckered pretty often by those on one side of an issue. That's the problem, they pick a side, then go on the attack. It may be good TV for CBS's typical elderly middle-America shut-in viewer, but it's hardly good journalism.

pwd:

Apparently, the guy retired after 29 years of service with the "Agency". What administration would this put in office at his hire date and precisely what would this have to do with anyting? Does the White House approve or disapprove of every potential CIA employee?

The gentleman made a statement that he was told that the emphasis would no longer be on WMD, and was to be touted as "Regime Change".

Whether it was one party or the other, when as many people come "out of the woodwork" as have lately, you have to wonder what is the cause...Is there really a problem? Are they all publicity whores? Is it a side effect of easy access to public airwaves? Can ALL of them simply be labelled as "disgruntled", or "Bush haters?" And possibly even more key: Should the media spend as much time as they do on such stories (Detainee treatment, WMD definitions, leaks), or should the public be kept blithely misinformed? Remember: "Ignorance is Strength".

And mul....before you begin your rant on the media, every individual has access to multiple sources and can make up their minds by prudent sifting. FOX is not the only game in town, no more than CNN or any of the others.

Yeah, that positive story they had on Iraq a few weeks back -- about the progress in Tal Afar -- that turned out to be a misrepresentation, because a few weeks after they did it, al Quaeda came back into the town.

Just can't trust those positive stories on 60 Minutes.

good point. very, very few are political appointees, and they typically leave with the outgoing administration.

I wasn't writing about any one individual...but the TV press talent for bringing well known "experts" back...for example, they seem to bring out Madelyn Albright (Sp?) out a LOT.... Frankly I try to keep my TV off during the news slots these days...it reduces my need for blood pressure pills.

Let's see. How about the Jeep "rollover" problem where they had to let the air out of the far side (from the cameras) tires to get it to roll? Or how about the the "exploding" (in a side impact) Chevy pickup that had to be wired with explosives to get it to blow? Let's see, then there was the assault rifle demo from Florida, where they shot at cinder blocks. The "assault rifle" destroyed the block; the "normal" rifle did not. Because they intentionally missed the block. Yes, and the Alar scare that ruined an apple growing friend's business. And on and on. Just who are the brain dead viewrs that keep this "news" show alive?

I'm sure this will really help sell Mr. Drumheller's book . This is all being done for the country of course, and not for personal gain. Uh huh, right.

After 60 Min. did the piece on FL's concealed carry law, where Leslie Stahl got her permit, I just could not watch the show anymore. I recall their show on the assault weapons ban too. Rally is right. Once you see them do a hatchet job on a subject you know something about, you have to wonder about the rest of them. I read enough news sources every day to not feel uninformed about what's going on. So missing 60 Min. has not affected me much.

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.