Brian Williams is a Liar

Hawk said:
2) I can only speak for myself, but I'm more disappointed than 'upset' about Williams. The NBC Nightly News is a decent newscast; not especially hard-hitting, but very well produced and informative. A nice daily dose of Americana. Williams is a very talented anchor. However, this type of fib -- one that has been knowingly and repeatedly perpetuated over the course of a decade -- is the kind that can thoroughly destroy reputations. It's pretty brazen if you think about it. Williams has put the credibility of his entire production crew and editorial staff in jeopardy. I'm sure fact-checkers across the country are combing over the collective work of the news division as we speak.

It all just seems like another nail in the coffin for mainstream news media.
Click to expand...

Agree on point-two—though I also agree with zito that it's unfortunately somewhat unsurprising, all things considered.

Personally, I always really enjoyed Williams' guest-spots on 30 Rock, so I guess I could say I'm a little more disappointed than I would be if this were, say, one of the other big networks' nightly-news anchors. But, in general, that coffin you mention's been pretty well nailed-shut for around a decade.
 
Hawk said:
Yeah, yeah, but that technically doesn't make Bush's comments lies. He said Saddam had chemical/biological weapons and the means to produce more (which was true) and that he wanted to build a nuclear arsenal (which was also true, although he had neither the money or the scientific expertise to lift the program off the ground).
Click to expand...

talk about moving the goalposts
 
Hawk said:
Yeah, yeah, but that technically doesn't make Bush's comments lies. He said Saddam had chemical/biological weapons and the means to produce more (which was true) and that he wanted to build a nuclear arsenal (which was also true, although he had neither the money or the scientific expertise to lift the program off the ground).
Click to expand...

The claim was that Saddam was actively seeking/making weapons, which was not true.

The idea that we went to war because there was scattered detritus from his old weapons programs is absolutely ludicrous. That would have been an even dumber reason to go to war than the flimsy pretext we actually used.
 
Metaphysicist said:
The claim was that Saddam was actively seeking/making weapons, which was not true.

The idea that we went to war because there was scattered detritus from his old weapons programs is absolutely ludicrous. That would have been an even dumber reason to go to war than the flimsy pretext we actually used.
Click to expand...

You can't prove that Saddam wasn't 'actively seeking/making weapons'. He used chemical weapons on his own people before. You think he quit after he did that?
 
Krgrecw said:
You can't prove that Saddam wasn't 'actively seeking/making weapons'. He used chemical weapons on his own people before. You think he quit after he did that?
Click to expand...

True, but you can't prove that OJ killed his estranged wife and Mr. Goldman can you? Does that mean that 100% of us here on this board don't know better than that BS decision?

They did find a few containers of chemical weapons when we went in. They were stamped something like "Property of the Confederate States of America". Face it WE were wrong. Those who believed Colin Powell (myself included) were proven wrong. If they had been there we would have found them, and if we can't find them we can't claim the moral high ground for finding them, except on talk radio, where truth is relative.



Since the original purpose of this thread was to blast a member of the media for lying for personal gain (Hawk, you aren't claiming this was a part of a vast liberal plot right, just some good old fashioned "look at me, Mr. War Hero Correspondent", right), let's condemn them ALL, does that work for everyone?

I'll be the first, I condemn and and all members of the media, including those in the news/entertainment/opinion fields who knowingly don't tell the whole truth in their stories 100% of the time. I condemn them, period!!!

So, who's with me and who still wants to cherry pick their outrage and/or only rely on "good reliable sources" for their "real facts" rather than the actual truth that's out there but in damned inconvenient sometimes?
 
Oklahomahawk said:
(Hawk, you aren't claiming this was a part of a vast liberal plot right, just some good old fashioned "look at me, Mr. War Hero Correspondent", right)
Click to expand...

Haha, yes, I don't really even consider Williams a proper liberal, so ...
 
Krgrecw said:
You can't prove that Saddam wasn't 'actively seeking/making weapons'. He used chemical weapons on his own people before. You think he quit after he did that?
Click to expand...

well you can prove it, because we found no evidence of it after what 12 years now? MMunitions we found were of the 80s era.

http://news.yahoo.com/chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq-nyt-report-135347507.html

Among the reasons for the secrecy? "The discoveries of these chemical weapons did not support the government’s invasion rationale," Chivers writes. "After the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, [President George W.] Bush insisted that [Iraqi leader Saddam] Hussein was hiding an active weapons of mass destruction program, in defiance of international will and at the world’s risk. United Nations inspectors said they could not find evidence for these claims."

The discovery of pre-Gulf War chemical weapons — most of them "filthy, rusty or corroded" — did not fit the narrative.

“They needed something to say that after Sept. 11 Saddam used chemical rounds,” Lampier said. “And all of this was from the pre-1991 era.”


Also I'd think you'd love Saddam's genocide, after all typically his biggest targets were religious radicals. And he was secular and against sharia law. You'd think he'd be a republican hero.
 
Metaphysicist said:
The claim was that Saddam was actively seeking/making weapons, which was not true.
Click to expand...

Well, the notion that he wasn't seeking weapons is extremely thin (if not out and out false) -- and Bush never claimed that Hussein was actually in the process of making weapons, but rather, had the capability to do so. Which was true.
 
Hawk said:
Well, the notion that he wasn't seeking weapons is extremely thin (if not out and out false) -- and Bush never claimed that Hussein was actually in the process of making weapons, but rather, had the capability to do so. Which was true.
Click to expand...

Eh. No

"we do know, with absolute certainty, that he (Saddam) is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon"

The fact that Bush's government constantly moved the goal posts is evidence enough that they didn't have even close to the amount of evidence they needed to justify the war. Bush admin literally threw **** at the wall to see if it would stick. And cause of Bush's popularity post 9/11 some of it stuck long enough to get boots on the ground.
 
Hawk said:
Well, the notion that he wasn't seeking weapons is extremely thin (if not out and out false) -- and Bush never claimed that Hussein was actually in the process of making weapons, but rather, had the capability to do so. Which was true.
Click to expand...

Well of course he was seeking weapons. Who wouldn't have in his situation. That doesn't justify the invasion.
 
zitothebrave said:
Eh. No

"we do know, with absolute certainty, that he (Saddam) is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon"
Click to expand...

First of all, that is a Dick Cheney quote -- not Bush. My only comments in this thread have been attacking the stupid 'Bush lied' Oliver Stone narrative.

Secondly, what part of that quote is false? He never says that Saddam Hussein is even in possession of the uranium to begin with. Just that Hussein was buying a lot of aluminum and distilled water.
 
50PoundHead said:
Well of course he was seeking weapons. Who wouldn't have in his situation. That doesn't justify the invasion.
Click to expand...

What justifies invasion?

Loss of human life?
Imminent threat (to homeland)?
Future threat?
Threat to allies?

Hussein was doing everything within his power, and against UN sanctions, to maintain power and regional strength.

See: Tariq Company
 
jpx7 said:
I'm glad to see this thread hasn't deviated from the subject of butthole-munching.
Click to expand...

edible-anus-chocolates-8069.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top