Remove CBS from MY TV please

03/2104 | repub32

[repub32]

I mean is CBS becoming the antiAmerica/antiBush channel or is it me. I will never turn to that channel again. Here we have Clark on putting all the blame on BUSH and not one critizism for the administration he worked for for 8 yrs..

[TASMANIANRED]

Tenet got the job because Woosley quit . Woosley quit because Clinton wouldn't meet with him.

[lilylangtree]

Agree w/you. Don't like CBS. Unfortunately, I do like CSI which is on CBS but that's all. I even cancelled CBS Cable shows (Showtime). However, in the past weeks, I've not even viewed CSI. So, all in all, I can do without CBS and Dan Rather.

[an amused spectator]

http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/

Tabbed Browsing

Firefox presents a fast and convenient way to browse the web - now you can open several pages in one window in separate browser tabs. Open links in the background while you read a web page, then continue to the links when you're done - pages are available when you need them, making the web feel faster even over slow connections.

Popup Blocking

Popup advertising is one of the biggest web annoyances. Firefox shields you from unwanted popup windows. It also lets you allow certain sites to open popup windows if necessary.

[technomage]

We have not only refused to watch anything on CBS for maybe two years. We have also had friends who do watch keep us informed on who advertises. We do our best to boycott those advertisers AND we write them and let them know why.

Just one small little voice in the wind, but every little bit may help.

BTW, be prepared!! I believe we will hear and see things from the socialist lefty appeasers in the coming months that will make our jaws drop!!

[solo gringo]

I have'nt watched cbs for many years and will be many years before i will watch it again.They used to lie all the time and you could catch them every day dan rather is a numbskull commie.

[The Wizard]

me too...right now

[The Wizard]

gone

[kabar]

I was half listening to that program. But I believe Clark did say that he had presented to both Clinton and Bush plans to attack Al Quede and kill OBL and both rejected them. I won't dismiss Clark or his allegations. But he is trying to sell a book. But of course so was everyone who came out with an anti Clinton book and I believe most of that stuff.

Besides trying to sell a book, Clarke was launching a political attack on GWB in the midst of an election year. The timing of the book and the contents are not coincidental. Particularly damning was his comments that Bush was doing a terrible job in fighting terrorism and that Iraq was a distraction. This is nonsense since Iraq has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism for over a decade and we have been bogged down for more than 10 years enforcing two no-fly zones over Iraq.

[BrucefromMtVernon]

CBS stands for "Communist Broadcasting System". By the way, there is no television at all in this household. I gave up TV altogether at the age of 21. It's filth/lies/rot/scum/slime/garbage. Kill your television!

[Burkeman1]

Election year or not. Plenty of anti Clinton books came out in 95 and 96 when Clinton was up for re-election. That didn't make me disbelieve them. I believe a lot worse about Clinton than what the "mainstream" will admit too. I have no love for Bush either and I won't dismiss criticism of him just because someone is labeled a partisan. Of course they are partisan against Bush! It doesn't mean they are all liars.

Iraq was on the list of terrorist sponsers (like many of our current "allies"). But hadn't attacked us as Clark said and was not behind 9/11. The point Clark was trying to make is that Bush and his administration wanted war with Iraq after 9/11 with no proof of any connection to 9/11 (that they admit now) but wanted Clark to establish a link or at least a link to AQ. He said- categorically that no operational relationship between Iraq and AQ existed and that the President was told this by him, CIA, elements in the DOD, and the FBI and yet ignored it and relied on more dubious unvetted intel by his own political appointees.

[kabar]

Iraq was on the list of terrorist sponsors (like many of our current "allies").

What current allies are you talking about? Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were not on the list of state sponsors of terrorism, if that is what you mean.

Of course they are partisan against Bush! It doesn't mean they are all liars.

I never called Clarke a liar. He just hasn't provided us with the full story. He was the counter-terrorism czar after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in East Africa. Obvioiusly, his strategy and world view did not prevail in the war against al-Qaeda. Clarke should take some responsibility for his role in the process, which predated Bush.

The point Clark was trying to make is that Bush and his administration wanted war with Iraq after 9/11 with no proof of any connection to 9/11 (that they admit now) but wanted Clark to establish a link or at least a link to AQ. He said- categorically that no operational relationship between Iraq and AQ existed and that the President was told this by him, CIA, elements in the DOD, and the FBI and yet ignored it and relied on more dubious unvetted intel by his own political appointees.

The point I am trying to make is that our invasion of Iraq was an integral part of the war on terrorism. After 9/11, Bush presented his doctrine that the US would go after terrorists with global reach and the states that harbor them.

Saddam was a prime candidate for the Bush doctrine. It was not necessary for us to establish a positive connection between AQ and Iraq to take action, especially in view of Saddam's past history. Saddam had the resources, i.e. Oil for Food billions, and a record of supporting terrorists, including providing money to Palestinian suicide bombers.

Saddam also had unaccounted for stocks of WMD and used them against the Iranians and the Kurds. He could give them to AQ or other terrorists. After all, Saddam did try to assassinate Bush 41. Moreover, the US was committing significant resources for over a decade enforcing the no-fly zones. This was not a tenable situation, which could be maintained indefinitely especially when we were also fighting a war in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

I find it surprising that Clarke or anyone else can say uncategorically that Saddam had no connection to AQ. What is he basing that conclusion on, the same intelligence that proved faulty about WMD? The liberation of Iraq and the removal of a tyrant who invaded two of his neighbors and killed more than 400,000 of his citizens and buried them in mass graves are good things. We have taken a bold foreign policy initiative, which can bring freedom and democracy to a region of the world that sorely needs it. Let a bureaucrat like Clarke rant all he wants. Bush did the right thing.

[phrith]

Geez - talk about conditioned responses. No-one even pauses to consider that perhaps Clarke is telling the truth. That Clinton actually did do more to fight terrorism than Bush has done. Talk about ideological blinders. Kind of sad.

[FlyVet]

This will continue into November. CBS kicked off its anti-Bush campaign in January, one being a hit piece on the Ed Secretary, saying his policies in Texas were a failure. 60 Minutes/60 Minutes II have been tasked with the "responsibility". I won't hold my breath waiting for them to do a hit piece on Kerry....although I TRIPLE DOG DARE them to do so, in the interest of bi-partisanship, since they love that b-word so much.

Right, you CBS hack lurkers? Right? Hmmmm?

[Sidebar Moderator]

Kind of sad.

We hate seeing people sad. Bye!

[Bullish]

It's all part of the ongoing, coordinated effort to win the White House for Hillary.

[sam_whiskey]

Well lemmee see now-

I can see what Bush is doing about terrorism with my own two eyes...and it looks like a hell of a lot to me. I really never saw or heard about Clinton doing **** to stem the tide of terrorism for eight long years unless you count biting his lower lip.

[sam_whiskey]

Was that a reasoned enough response for ya'????

[Fledermaus]

And to think it's the number 1 network right now.

You'd think they'd stop insulting their demographic of older viewers who are probably more conservative.

But then again, Cold Case is a big hit and consistently in the top 20 TV shows and it's one of the biggest liberal issue hype programs with a focused group plot line that is so bad it's laughable.

But women love it for some reason.

[petercooper]

figures Lindsey was involved

[roses of sharon]

Call Stahl at 212-975-3247.

60 min mailbox is full, but I left a message for Stahl.

A nice one, of course, and left her wondering if their is a smear for her in the future.