Rather vs. Bush

What do you guys think of this? I found it in someone's online journal;

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


George W. Bush, President of the United States -
a. given documents he thought were true
b. failed to thoroughly investigate the facts
c. reported documents to the American people as true to make his case
d. when confronted with the facts, continued to report untruth and
stonewalled an investigation
e. number of Americans dead: 1100 (and thousands more wounded, not to
mention the genocide of Iraq)
f. should be given four more years as President of the United States



I thought it was eye opening, I had never thought of it like that before. How about everyone else?

Wow! When you put it like that! Pretty clever.

Once again, the Hippocracy of the Republican party at work.. Admit your wrong get fired. Lie,and get praise and adoration...

What the world needs now is another Southpark the Movie (or even a show like "Thats My Bush") to come on the scene. Can you imagine an animated fight between Bush and Rather with little Brokaws and Rumsfelds running around?

Ahh Team America where are you?

I firmly believe Rather could take Bush in a fight.



Plus. Dan's "Ratherisms" are far more entertaining than "Bushisms."

A selection of ratherisms.....

* "To err is human but to really foul up requires a computer."
* "This race is shakier than cafeteria Jell-o."
* Describing the New York Senate race between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rick Lazio: "Hotter than a New York elevator in August."
* "Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
* "Neither NASA nor the Russian Cosmodrome could track [the flip-flopping data]."
* "He swept through the South like a tornado through a trailer park."
* "Don't bet the trailer money yet."
* "It's too early to say he has the whip hand."
* "[In a previous election] they counted the votes until the cows had literally gone to sleep."
* "It's a ding dong battle back and forth."
* "[Chances are slim or none] If he doesn't carry Florida Slim will have left town."
* "If a frog had side pockets, he'd carry a hand gun."
* "They both have champagne on ice, but after the night is over, they might need a pick axe to open them."
* "This race is tight like a too-small bathing suit on a too-long ride home from the beach."
* "It's about as complicated as a wiring diagram to some dynamo."
* "Only votes talk - everything else walks."
* "This will show you how tight it is - it's spandex tight."
* "We're going to go to some of those longnecks from a long time ago."
* "He's going to find that people will hang on him like a coat rack."
* "This election swings like one of those pendulum things."
* "This race is as tight as the rusted lug nuts on a 57 Ford [or Chevy]."
* "What we know is that there will be no decision until some of those races are decided."
* "Al Gore has his back to the wall, shirt tails on fire with this race in Florida."
* Referring to the late Mel Carnahan, uses the phrases "dead man walking" and "he crossed the river."
* Addresses his CBS colleague Bob Schieffer as "Deputy Dog."
* "You talk about a ding-dong, knock-down, get-up race."
* "When it comes to a race like this, I'm a long distance runner and an all day hunter."
* "It's the American way: if you don't vote, you don't get to whine."
* "Smelling salts for all Democrats please."
* "...in Austin, between the 10 gallon hats and the Willie Nelson head bands."
* "...none of this television mumbo jumbo, let's get in there and count the votes."
* "Maybe you [tossing to a reporter] can bring some perspective on this, we're plum out."
* "When the going gets weird, anchor men punt."
* "Tipper is probably telling her husband to hook a U[-turn], go back to the house to get a recount."
* "It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat, Republican or a mug wamp, elected officials play it straight."
* "Florida is the whole deal, the real deal, a big deal."
* "Frankly we don't know whether to wind the watch or to bark at the moon."

Originally posted by TenaciousGuy
What do you guys think of this? I found it in someone's online journal;

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


George W. Bush, President of the United States -
a. given documents he thought were true
b. failed to thoroughly investigate the facts
c. reported documents to the American people as true to make his case
d. when confronted with the facts, continued to report untruth and
stonewalled an investigation
e. number of Americans dead: 1100 (and thousands more wounded, not to
mention the genocide of Iraq)
f. should be given four more years as President of the United States



I thought it was eye opening, I had never thought of it like that before. How about everyone else?

I actually made this same analogy at the dinner table the first I heard for a call for Rather's resignation. Hard to agrue that there is much of a difference, except for the fact that the President has a different level of duty to the public.

The only thing I have to say is it was so apropos to see M. Moore next to this steaming pile. How can you equate the below to rather

Before the war in Iraq, the Vice President of the United States made a very candid and truthful case regarding Saddam Hussein, stating "The suffering inside Iraq can come to an end when Saddam Hussein's regime is replaced, and I hope -- and most of the world community hopes -- that this regime based on terrorism and atrocities against his own people will be replaced. Over time, we hope to achieve that result."

As best I can tell, most of this is true

Whereas Congress in 1998 concluded that Iraq was then in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations and thereby threatened the vital interests of the United States and international peace and security, stated the reasons for that conclusion, and urged the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations (Public Law 105-235);

Whereas Iraq remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations, thereby continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States and international peace and security;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population, including the Kurdish peoples, thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations;

Whereas the United States has the inherent right, as acknowledged in the United Nations Charter, to use force in order to defend itself;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the high risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify the use of force by the United States in order to defend itself;

Whereas Iraq is in material breach of its disarmament and other obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, to cease repression of its civilian population that threatens international peace and security under United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and to cease threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq under United Nations Security Council Resolution 949, and United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes use of all necessary means to compel Iraq to comply with these `subsequent relevant resolutions';

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States to achieve full implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 678;

Whereas Congress in section 1095 of Public Law 102-190 has stated that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of Resolution 688';

Whereas Congress in the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-33 has expressed its sense that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States