Thursday, September 23, 2004

Dan Rather and George Bush

Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor

given documents he thought were true
failed to thoroughly investigate the facts
reported documents to the American people as true to make his case
when confronted with the facts, apologized and launched an investigation
number of Americans dead: 0
should be fired as CBS News Anchor

George W. Bush, President of the United States

given documents he thought were true
failed to thoroughly investigate the facts
reported documents to the American people as true to make his case
when confronted with the facts, continued to report untruth and stonewalled an investigation
number of Americans dead: 1100
should be given four more years as President of the United States
-Phil Short


It should be noted in the president’s defense. That given documents by the CIA an given documents by an unknown source should be judged a little differently.

Don’t get me wrong. I do not think Dan Rather needs to be fired. It was a mistake and it is self serving conservatives calling for his dismissal.

I also think though that the President needs to be defended in the war on terror. I believe very firmly in the Non-Aggression principle. This principle must be called into question when the security and soil of our nation is take. If we were automonous non-interventionist as we should be people would leave us alone. However as long as the LEFT wants us to be an ATM for developing nations, then the hatred against our nation is going to continue and we are going to need to defend our selves.

2 comments:

Bweezy said...

1. Cool comparison - I'm going to rip that one off of you (with due credit and link) and stick it on my own blog.

2. The war on terror is legitimate - you are very correct on that front - in International Law, you have the right to pre-emptively strike to defend your interests. You also have the right to retaliate against those who attack you. The campaign in Afghanistan was therefore legitimate.

3. Iraq was a different kettle of fish altogether. America was not under any threat from Iraq, imminent or otherwise - No WMD's, no evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link. The first Iraq war, when Iraq was driven out of Kuwait, was legitimate in international law. The second one had very little justification under international law. This is very apparent in hindsight (which, of course, is always 20-20).

Such justification under international law could have been obtained from the UN (in theory), but "the coalition" refused to jump through the necessary hoops to seek and obtain it. A cynic like me suggests that the decision to bypass the UN is because perhaps they knew their evidence of WMD's was shaky at best, and would never have withstood the UN's scrutiny. Alas, we'll never know.

Sorry for rambling, but I'm intrigued by the ATM comment, and that it causes hatred against America. I would have thought that foreign aid would do the opposite, and generate international good will. How do you see foreign aid as manifesting ill-will towards the US? It's an interesting point of view that I've never heard before.

Kevin J. Bowman said...

Due to a busy work schedule today, and a busy weekend. I will reply to this post on Monday