Jump to content
The Education Forum

Dan Rather's outrageous comments on coasttocoastam


Recommended Posts

There are many reasons why I shall never vote for Hillary but this is among the foremost. It shows that she is cackling psychopath and left that country filled with multi factions of terrorism.

You're blaming Hillary for the Iraq War and Arab Spring? It is those from which ISIS sprang.

Among the victims there of her neocon aggression was our late U.S. Ambassador who died in a most horrible way.

You think that Hillary Clinton instructed Ambassador Stevens to visit Benghazi on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks? If so, then I suppose you also believe that Ronald Regan instructed the marines to be stationed in the marine compound in Lebanon when it was bombed and 241 marines were killed. (Oh wait... Ronald Reagan did do that.)

The truth is that it was Stevens himself who chose to go to Benghazi that day. (I can say that because I don't have to fear political repercussions for "blaming Stevens." Which, of course, I am not doing. Though it does strike me as a foolish decision.)

Please quit being so political in your accusations. Beirut and Benghazi were both just terrible tragedies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sandy:

Please read this article

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

Some quotes: "Bill Clinton presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history."

"Clinton championed the idea of a federal three strikes law in his 1994 State of the Union address...."

"When Clinton left office in 2001, the true jobless rate for young non-college educated black Americans ...was 42%"

"One thing seems clear: Extreme poverty doubled to 1.5 million in the decade and a half after the law was passed." [Clinton's welfare reform bill]

You can do all kinds of thing with statistics.

One other point I missed: It was Bill Clinton who got through the long standing Rockefeller goal of NAFTA. Kennedy actively opposed it.

Not only did Bill Clinton achieve it, but his man on the issue, Mack McClarty, then went to work under HENRY KISSINGER. Where he got tutored in high priced lobbying. So much so that he then set up his own office.

http://maglobal.com

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many reasons why I shall never vote for Hillary but this is among the foremost. It shows that she is cackling psychopath and left that country filled with multi factions of terrorism. Among the victims there of her neocon aggression was our late U.S. Ambassador who died in a most horrible way.

This is not fair, Douglas. Chris Stevens, the ambassador there, was 100% on board with Hillary's desire to build up the friendly pro-democracy forces in Libya. He was mourned by many Libyans upon his death. And besides, U.S. policy in Libya has not been the disaster Fox News makes it out to be. Given the alternative--to sit by and let Qaddafi murder much of his population in a futile attempt to hang onto power--it may even have been the right thing to do.

The right-wing pundit class just loves to harp on Libya because it takes the attention off the failures of Afghanistan and Iraq. It's like--"See--the Democrats can make flusterclucks, too!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat:

I don't like Fox either, and I also think their spin on Benghazi is wrong.

But saying that does not excuse the very bad decision to intervene in the Libyan civil war. And to use every propaganda trick in the book to make it seem like there was going to be a bloodbath if the USA did not intervene. That was a canard.

It got so bad that Gaddafi called up Blair and told him that look, this rebellion is being aided by Al Qaeda, they want to set up cells here.

That warning turned out to be true.

See, Obama and Clinton never asked themselves the pertinent questions about this.

1.) Do we have anything on our side to replace this regime?

2.) If not, then is what is going to happen worse or better than what was there?

Libya is a debacle today. The solution was to offer safe passage to Gaddafi, and then have his son take over the country with strict conditions signed on to.

Clinton and Power and Rice brainwashed Obama into thinking Gaddafi had to be killed. Dead wrong.

The best article about this, and one I used for my essay on 13 Hours is by a University of Texas professor. I attach it below:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/libya/obamas-libya-debacle

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy:

Please read this article

http://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/

Some quotes: "Bill Clinton presided over the largest increase in federal and state prison inmates of any president in American history."

"Clinton championed the idea of a federal three strikes law in his 1994 State of the Union address...."

"When Clinton left office in 2001, the true jobless rate for young non-college educated black Americans ...was 42%"

"One thing seems clear: Extreme poverty doubled to 1.5 million in the decade and a half after the law was passed." [Clinton's welfare reform bill]

You can do all kinds of thing with statistics.

One other point I missed: It was Bill Clinton who got through the long standing Rockefeller goal of NAFTA. Kennedy actively opposed it.

Not only did Bill Clinton achieve it, but his man on the issue, Mack McClarty, then went to work under HENRY KISSINGER. Where he got tutored in high priced lobbying. So much so that he then set up his own office.

http://maglobal.com

Jim,

I've always been against three-strike laws, and Bill Clinton made a huge mistake with that.. We can blame Bernie Sander too because he voted for the bill.

I'm not smart enough to know if NAFTA is a good or bad thing. I suspect that it helps impoverished workers in Mexico at the expense of low-wage earners here. If so, I won't count it as a bad thing because I care about all poor people, regardless of nationality. But, granted, Clinton was elected to further the interests of Americans, not Mexicans.

The Wikipedia article on NAFTA states, "In a survey of leading economists, 95% supported the notion that on average, US citizens benefited on NAFTA."

The charts I posted are non-partisan from non-political sites. They are factual. So don't use the "statistics lie" cop-out.

It is a well known that during Clinton's tenure the crime rate dropped, poverty declined, the unemployment rate dropped to its lowest levels since the 1960s, and the budget was balanced for the first time since 1969. Overall it was a very successful presidency.

Unemployment Dropped Dramatically Under Both Clinton and Obama

UnemployNov2014.PNG

The Federal Budget was Balanced Under Bill Clinton

CBOProjAug2014.PNG

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sandy:

I think you are missing the point.

If you look at the chart on the previous page for poverty, yes it went down. For two reasons, and they are both mentioned in the article.

First, the rate of incarceration went up wildly under Clinton. Those people are not counted in those figures.

Second, once you are off of WIC, even then it gets easier to classify you as not in poverty.

But, this was only temporary, because if you look at your chart on the previous page, today it is back up to where it was!

I don't think you recall the furor over this on the Democratic side. Clinton tried to use the mantle of RFK for this draconian program, something only a Democrat could accomplish, and Reagan could not. Once he did, Bobby Kennedy's kids called Ed Edleman, who worked for RFK and then Clinton, and complained about it. Edelman then called a press conference and resigned. Saying RFK would have never done such a thing. You should read his comments about this.

NAFTA is a good thing? No, NAFTA is just one part of a huge program that David Rockefeller made his lifelong ambition. Namely globalization, a one world economy. One in which corporations could pay the absolute lowest prices for labor, which means hiring abroad, thereby controlling those economies, as the USA economy is hollowed out and the USA standard of living is lowered. While the middle class disappears and unions are smashed, The best book about this is Winner Take All Politics, a book I reviewed for Bob Parry. (BTW, I would not trust Wikipedia on an issue like that, just like I would not trust them on the sixties assassinations.) That globalization agenda was coupled with the erosion of the graduated income tax, and mass business deregulation.

I am not sure you are aware of this, but JFK and David Rockefeller had an exchange of letters which David did not like. And he took his criticism of Kennedy's anti colonial, and pro union views public in 1963. This was all dealt with wonderfully in Don GIbson's invaluable book, Battling Wall Street.

The larger issue of course is this: Our political system today has been short circuited wildly so that there is no one standing up for the middle class in America and Third World countries abroad. I mean what a choice: Trump or HC. Blah.

And in my view this al stems back to the assassinations of the sixties. Because that is what started the tilt of the GOP towards the extreme right, one which was soundly rejected in 1964. But Kennedy's assassination, and LBJ's advocacy of the Vietnam War, made Nixon possible.

Meanwhile, with the murder of RFK, Nixon was now elected president. Ford came in next, and with him, the rise of the neocons began. Because its Ford who brought into the White House, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

On the Democratic side, with the defeats of HHH and McGovern (which would not have happened with RFK), you then had what I call the "southernization" of the Democratic Party through the DLC and jerks like Al From. BTW, the Dems have "super delegates" because of GIllis Long, From's mentor, and the guy the DLC was modeled after.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Let us get back to the man who said thatJFK's head went forward in the Z film, but did not say it went violently back.

In 1967 he allowed Humes to lie about the autopsy by saying the Rydberg illustrations were accurate, and the wound was at the base of the neck, this is after he saw the actual pics.

Then he said in 1975 that the autopsy was botched, but CBS still knew that it was two shots from the rear. Well, if Latimer is your advisor, then yep you can say that.

Then in 1993, he said that in 30 years there has been no real evidence to challenge the WC verdict.

LOL, ROTF, LMAO

Well Dan, with Hill, Latimer, Alvarez, Schiller, and Itek advising you, then I guess you can say that.

BTW, from what I heard from Roger's friend, Jerry Policoff, the reason Rather had to do the 1975 show as host is that Cronkite refused to do it.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Let us get back to the man who said thatJFK's head went forward in the Z film, but did not say it went violently back.

Seems to me the only logical explanation is that Rather was ordered to do this. Do you have any idea or theory as to who ordered it? As an employee of course he took orders from CBS. But did CBS give him such an order? That would virtually put CBS in on the conspiracy.

Edited by Ron Ecker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NAFTA is a good thing? No, NAFTA is just one part of a huge program that David Rockefeller made his lifelong ambition. Namely globalization, a one world economy. One in which corporations could pay the absolute lowest prices for labor, which means hiring abroad, thereby controlling those economies, as the USA economy is hollowed out and the USA standard of living is lowered. While the middle class disappears and unions are smashed, The best book about this is Winner Take All Politics, a book I reviewed for Bob Parry. (BTW, I would not trust Wikipedia on an issue like that, just like I would not trust them on the sixties assassinations.) That globalization agenda was coupled with the erosion of the graduated income tax, and mass business deregulation.

Jim,

My dad was a union leader at Geneva Steel Plant in Orem, Utah. When I went to buy my first car, he cautioned me to buy American. For if I didn't, I would be putting an American laborer out of work. My response to him was that if I didn't buy a Japanese car, I'd be putting a Japanese laborer out of work.

What's the difference??

When jobs are shipped overseas, it lowers the standard of living of Americans. But is raises the standard of living in countries where the poverty is much worse. I'd say that overall, that's a pretty good exchange.

Of course, its the corporations and wealthy investors who really make out. Redistribution of wealth through taxation is the answer for that.

(BTW, this is an example of why people say I'm far to the left.)

P.S. I don't buy that incarcerating more people (usually men) lowers the poverty rate. When a person is incarcerated, he is unable to work and provide for his family. And that raises the poverty rate.

For some reason you choose to believe just the negative opinions written about the Clintons. (Please don't say that I choose to believe just the positive opinions. All I have done here is present hard, indisputable facts.)

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. Let us get back to the man who said thatJFK's head went forward in the Z film, but did not say it went violently back.

Seems to me the only logical explanation is that Rather was ordered to do this. Do you have any idea or theory as to who ordered it? As an employee of course he took orders from CBS. But did CBS give him such an order? That would virtually put CBS in on the conspiracy.

Well, that is a really good question Ron.

All I can say that is when I first saw the Z film in 1975, I was kind of stunned. I mean the single thing that stood out was the back and to the left violent motion.

I really have no explanation for Rather saying what he did. Maybe you are right.

PS Sandy I am aware of your reply and I respect it. As I do you. But I want to get this thread back to where it is supposed to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS Sandy I am aware of your reply and I respect it. As I do you. But I want to get this thread back to where it is supposed to be.

Sure Jim, I understand. I'm sure you know that I have great respect for you too. You're a great asset to the cause. And an overall good guy.

(It's just that I'm a Clinton supporter, despite their weaknesses. You're not, and that's cool.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps like so many of us, Dan Rather is considering that the only alternative on the menu is Donald J. Trump. Although it's possible for Bernie Sanders to get the nomination, even the despicable Romney, Bush I and Bush II, refuse to support Trump.

The same situation existed with Obama v. McCain (who's shelf-life has long since expired, IMO) and Romney. My vote went to Obama in BOTH cases, and I STILL think it was the correct move. Yes, Obama and Hillary should be criticized when it is appropriate, but let's not forget that DR may simply be drumming up some votes that would keep Trump out of the White House because Hillary or Bernie would be better than Trump. The only requirement to get MY vote is to be BETTER than Trump. Perhaps DR would agree...

Edited by Tom Neal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's odd. Because of his actions regarding the Kennedy assassination, some seem to think Dan Rather is a conservative. He is not. He never was. He was a pain in the rump of the Nixon administration, and an even bigger pain in the rump of the Bush administrations. He was fired from CBS for (supposedly) letting his zeal to get Bush cloud his judgment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...