CBS Affiliate Will Not Air Sheehan Ad Because There Is "No Proof" Of

[Pirate Smile]

Absence Of WMD In Iraq!



CBS, FOX Refuse to Air Cindy's Plea to President

BOISE, ID--A television ad in which Cindy Sheehan asks President Bush questions about the Iraq war has been rejected by Boise affiliates CBS and FOX. The same ad began airing in Salt Lake City on Monday on NBC CBS and FOX affiliates.

The timing of the ads coincides with the President's visit to nearby Donnelly, Idaho where the President will be staying through Wednesday.

Representatives for the two stations expressed different responses for their rejection of the ad. The Vice President of sales at Fisher Broadcasting Inc., which owns KBCI (CBS) said: "In the spot, Ms. Sheehan accuses the President of the United States of being a liar. She claims the President lied about, among other things, the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There is no proof that we are aware of regarding the truthfulness of her claim. We require proof of claims such as this. Until that is provided, our station will not carry this ad."

Media buyers were similarly asked to supply proof for a Waco television affiliate. When sent findings from the 9/11 Commission, the local station decided to run the ad. However, the Vice President of sales at CBS Boise responded, "If it was not known until after we took to war then it's hard to understand how someone could have lied…hindsight is always 20/20…that's our point." A representative for KTRV (Fox) said: "We are not accepting the spot because inventory is sold out. A very late order request makes it difficult to clear."

Three stations in Salt Lake City aired the ad, Mark Weist-a spokesman for one of those stations-said, "There's programming and ads that we would not run because of our ownership and our position in the marketplace, however in this case, we felt this is one person's opinion and that there are others who express this same opinion. The bigger picture is by suppressing the message are we doing what is right under the First Amendment and in an open democratic society?"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2005/08/23/cbs-affiliate-will-not-ai_n_6119.html

[cloud75]

1. let's boycott the station's advertisers.

[paulk]

35. the advertisers aren't responsible for what the station does

if you want to boycott someone, boycott the station itself. Don't watch it.

[wli]

42. oh yes they are, and furthermore the station gets money from them

To rob the station of money, you have to scare away the advertisers. You do that by boycotting the advertisers.

[mac56]

91. I've worked in broadcasting for more than ten years.

Advertisers may not directly dictate what a station broadcasts, but unhappy advertisers will make a station dance like a monkey on a heat duct.

[cloud75]

101. You boycott the advertisers and that will get the attention of the station

it works.

[paulk]

105. even if it works - that doesn't make it right

you propose to punish someone for what someone else is doing.

That's wrong.

That's just so wrong...

I don't know what else to say.

[cloud75]

106. boycotts have a long history of giving average people more leverage

in negotiations. It is our way of protesting without having to pickett or march in front of the station. It also tells the station that there are people out here who oppose their political point view. Most business don't want to be associated with something controversial. They just want to make an honest living. The right does this type of thing all the time. Bill O'liely is always talking about boycotting...although i don't agree with his political point of view he is effective.

[paulk]

110. that O'Reily thinks it's a good way to do things should tell you something

it's morally reprehensible.

To target a business because of it's political activities is one thing; but to call for a blanket boycott of businesses for something they didn't even do and have no control over... how do you even know the politics of those company owners? Or the politics of the employees of that business who may be hurt by your boycott?

[ecoflame]

96. How are you going to do this?

Unless you are in this station's broadcasting area, how are you going to accomplish this? It's a CBS affliate.

Now - we're here. We can do something.

[cloud75]

99. they not only have local advertisers but also national advertisers

business that are nationwide.

[ecoflame]

103. Then boycott nationally....

We'll boycott locally.

[cloud75]

107. deal! now all we need is a list of business that advertise with the

stations.

[Burried News]

2. Pathetic. Here's to ethics and consistency.

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. "She claims the President lied"

Nobody has proved the existence or lack of god either.

Those fuckers will eventually regret this decision, it revaelas their utter stupidity.

[SharonAnn]

104. The "Null Hypothesis" cannot be proven.

[me b zola]

111. I think you raised a most excelent point

Do those stations allow for religious advertisment?

Did they demand proof of God?

[Orangepeel]

4. good. it's a better story that way.

more people will see the ad in news stories about the stations refusing to run it than they would if it just aired. that's how I saw it.

[wake.up.america]

15. Great. I agree! This shows how big business and government...

work together. Points it out rather clearly. Perhaps more people will start thinking.

Speaking of lying? Who lies more than Pinocchio? GWB

[bpilgrim]

37. more free press to help get the real QUESTIONS out that the M$MW's refuse

to bring up let alone address.

:bounce:

peace

[Roland99]

5. Send them the Dulfer Report

[Carolab]

6. US Policy Made Clear

Q: Daddy, why did we have to attack Iraq?
A: Because they had weapons of mass destruction, son.

Q: But the inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction.
A: That's because the Iraqis were hiding them.

Q: And that's why we invaded Iraq?
A: Yep. Invasions always work better than inspections.

Q: But after we invaded them, we STILL didn't find any weapons of mass destruction, did we?
A: That's because the weapons are so well hidden. Don't worry, we'll find something, probably right before the 2004 election.

Q: Why did Iraq want all those weapons of mass destruction?
A: To use them in a war, silly.

Q: I'm confused. If they had all those weapons that they planned to use in a war, then why didn't they use any of those weapons when we went to war with them?
A: Well, obviously they didn't want anyone to know they had those weapons so they chose to die by the thousands rather than defend themselves.

Q: That doesn't make sense Daddy. Why would they choose to die if they had all those big weapons to fight us back with?
A: It's a different culture. It's not supposed to make sense.

Q: I don't know about you, but I don't think they had any of those weapons our government said they did.
A: Well, you know, it doesn't matter whether or not they had those weapons. We had another good reason to invade them anyway.

Q: And what was that?
A: Even if Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein was cruel dictator, which is another good reason to invade another country.

Q: Why? What does a cruel dictator do that makes it OK to invade his country?
A: Well!, f or one thing, he tortured his own people.

Q: Kind of like what they do in China?
A: Don't go comparing China to Iraq. China is a good economic competitor, where millions of people work for slave wages in sweatshops to make U.S. corporations richer.

Q: So if a country lets its people be exploited for American corporate gain, it's a good country, even if that country tortures people?
A: Right.

Q: Why were people in Iraq being tortured?
A: For political crimes, mostly, like criticizing the government. People who criticized the government in Iraq were sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Isn't that exactly what happens in China?
A: I told you, China is different.

Q: What's the difference between China and Iraq?
A: Well, for one thing, Iraq was ruled by the Ba'ath party, while China is Communist.

Q: Didn't you once tell me Communists were bad?
A: No, just Cuban Communists are bad.

Q: How are the Cuban Communists bad?
A: Well, for one thing, people who criticize the government in Cuba are sent to prison and tortured.

Q: Like in Iraq?
A: Exactly.

Q: And like in China, too?
A: I told you, China's a good economic competitor. Cuba, on the other hand, is not.

Q: How come Cuba isn't a good economic competitor?
A: Well, you see, back in the early 1960s, our government passed some laws that made it illegal for Americans to trade or do any business with Cuba until they stopped being Communists and started being capitalists like us.

Q: But if we got rid of those laws, opened up trade with Cuba, and started doing business with them, wouldn't that help the Cubans become capitalist's?
A: Don't be a smart-ass.

Q: I didn't think I was being one.
A: Well, anyway, they also don't have freedom of religion in Cuba.

Q: Kind of like China and the Falun Gong movement?
A: I told you, stop saying bad things about China. Anyway, Saddam Hussein came to power through a military coup, so he's not really a legitimate leader anyway.

Q: What's a military coup?
A: That's when a military general takes over the government of a country by force, instead of holding free elections like we do in the United States.

Q: Didn't the ruler of Pakistan come to power by a military coup?
A: You mean General Pervez Musharraf? Uh, yeah, he did, but Pakistan is our friend.

Q: Why is Pakistan our friend if their leader is illegitimate?
A: I never said Pervez Musharraf was illegitimate .

Q: Didn't you just say a military general who comes to power by forcibly overthrowing the legitimate government of a nation is an illegitimate leader?
A: Only Saddam Hussein. Pervez Musharraf is our friend, because he helped us invade Afghanistan.

Q: Why did we invade Afghanistan?
A: Because of what they did to us on September 11th.

Q: What did Afghanistan do to us on September 11th?
A: Well, on September 11th, nineteen men. Fifteen of them Saudi Arabians hijacked four airplanes and flew three of them into buildings, killing over 3,000 Americans.

Q: So how did Afghanistan figure into all that?
A: Afghanistan was where those bad men trained, under the oppressive rule of the Taliban.

Q: Aren't the Taliban those bad radical Islamics who chopped off people's heads and hands?!
A: Yes, that's exactly who they were. Not only did they chop off people's heads and hands, but they oppressed women, too.

Q: Didn't the Bush administration give the Taliban 43 million dollars back in May of 2001?
A: Yes, but that money was a reward because they did such a good job fighting drugs.

Q: Fighting drugs?
A: Yes, the Taliban were very helpful in stopping people from growing opium poppies.

Q: How did they do such a good job?
A: Simple. If people were caught growing opium poppies, the Taliban would have their hands and heads cut off.

Q: So, when the Taliban cut off people's heads and hands for growing flowers, that was OK, but not if they cut people's heads and hands off for other reasons?
A: Yes. It's OK with us if radical Islamic fundamentalists cut off people's hands for growing flowers, but it's cruel if they cut off people's hands for stealing bread.

Q: Don't they also cut off people's hands and heads in Saudi Arabia?
A: That's different. Afghanistan was ruled by a tyrannical patriarchy that oppressed women and forced them to wear burqas whenever they were in public, with death by stoning as the penalty for women who did not comply.

Q: Don't Saudi women have to wear burqas in public, too?
A: No, Saudi women merely wear a traditional Islamic body covering.

Q: What's the difference?
A: The traditional Islamic covering worn by Saudi women is a modest yet fashionable garment that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers. The burqa, on the other hand, is an evil tool of patriarchal oppression that covers all of a woman's body except for her eyes and fingers.

Q: It sounds like the same thing with a different name.
A: Now, don't go comparing Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are our friends.

Q: But I thought you said 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11th were from Saudi Arabia.
A: Yes, but they trained in Afghanistan.

Q: Who trained them?
A: A very bad man named Osama bin Laden.

Q: Was he from Afghanistan?
A: Uh, no, he was from Saudi Arabia too. But he was a bad man, a very bad man.

Q: I seem to recall he was our friend once.
A: Only when we helped him and the mujahadeen repel the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan back in the 1980s.

Q: Who are the Soviets? Was that the Evil Communist Empire Ronald Reagan talked about?
A: There are no more Soviets. The Soviet Union broke up in 1990 or thereabouts!, and now they have elections and capitalism like us. We call them Russians now.

Q: So the Soviets ? I mean, the Russians ? are now our friends?
A: Well, not really. You see, they were our friends for many years after they stopped being Soviets, but then they decided not to support our invasion of Iraq, so we're mad at them now. We're also mad at the French and the Germans because they didn't help us invade Iraq either.

Q: So the French and Germans are evil, too?
A: Not exactly evil, but just bad enough that we had to rename French fries and French toast to Freedom Fries and Freedom Toast.

Q: Do we always rename foods whenever another country doesn't do what we want them to do?
A: No, we just do that to our friends. Our enemies, we invade.

Q: But wasn't Iraq one of our friends back in the 1980s! ?
A: Well, yeah. For a while.

Q: Was Saddam Hussein ruler of Iraq back then?
A: Yes, but at the time he was fighting against Iran, which made him our friend, temporarily.

Q: Why did that make him our friend?
A: Because at that time, Iran was our enemy.

Q: Isn't that when he gassed the Kurds?
A: Yeah, but since he was fighting against Iran at the time, we looked the other way, to show him we were his friend.

Q: So anyone who fights against one of our enemies automatically becomes our friend?
A: Most of the time, yes.

Q: And anyone who fights against one of our friends is automatically an enemy?
A: Sometimes that's true, too. However, if American corporations can profit by selling weapons to both sides at the same time, all the better.

Q: Why?
A: Because war is good for the economy, which means war is good for America. Also, since God is on America's side, anyone who opposes war is a godless un-American Communist. Do you understand now why we attacked Iraq?

Q: I think so. We attacked them because God wanted us to, right?
A: Yes.

Q: But how did we know God wanted us to attack Iraq?
A: Well, you see, God personally speaks to George W. Bush and tells him what to do.

Q: So basically, what you're saying is that we attacked Iraq because George W. Bush hears voices in his head?
A. Yes! You finally understand how the real world works. Now close your eyes, make yourself comfortable, and go to sleep. Good night.

Q: Good night, Daddy.

http://www.trickology.com/thebored/archive/index.php/t-9577.html

[wake.up.america]

9. "Class, this is required reading." Politics 101

[Robeson]

18. Beautiful. That was great!....

...:applause:

[Massacure]

26. A perfect summary of Bush's foreign policy. 5 stars out of five.

:applause:

[jonnyblitz]

7. the person making the claim of the existence of weapons

is the one who has the burden of proof not the other way around. It's the same stunt a religionist tries to pull when he tells the atheist he is the one who has to prove there is no god. :eyes:

[progressoid]

89. Ding! Ding! Ding! - And jonnyblitz wins the microwave oven!

I was thinking the same thing.

[havocmom]

8. Some handy excuse, insist someone prove a negative.

They sure didn't have such standards in 04 when they took $$ from anti DEM PACs and Swift Boat Liars. The didn't insist on proof that DEMS helped terrorists or that Kerry did not earn his honors. They took the money and the ads ran.

Making excuses. Call it what it is. CBS: CRONIE BULL SHIT.

[ninkasi]

36. That's what I was thinking when I read their pathetic excuses

Proof is something they never seemed to demand when Republicans were running ads smearing us. But now, all of a sudden, they want ironclad proof of a negative. That excuse wouldn't hold up against a fairly good kindergarten debating team, and they expect us to believe them?

[HereSince1628]

10. Oh, I love that old prove a negative or I won't show yer ad defense!

Screw Idaho and the rest of the Red Deseret. When we retake the WH we need to hand it all over to Hanford for experimentation with heavy isotopes.

Sorry, I've seen too much Pat Robertson lately.

[Robb]

11. As much as I hate to think it, I suspect politics has little play here

I just finished a conference on slander and libel a few months ago. I would bet, political affiliations aside, most media lawyers would put the brakes on running an ad that says anyone lied about something.

Simple reason is that the media outlet (or publication) that chooses to run something becomes responsible for its content these days, from a libel perspective. Letters to the editor get dumped all the time because a publisher is considered to be tactitly endorsing someone who says "Joe Blow is a crack addict" in a letter. Joe can sue the newspaper -- and win -- unless the paper has photos of him smoking crack.

In other words, the administration could potentially embroil a TV station with libel and slander claims ... you're protected by only two things (as I understand it), satire -- which this ain't -- and the truth.

Truth is a tough one to get to, because this administration swells with pride at its ability to hide it.

[Psephos]

30. The legal liability issue does put the scare in a lot of companies

Your last line says it all, too.

Peace.

[mbperrin]

50. Presidents are public figures, and they have no standing for

libel or slander. You can say anything you please about them (not threaten them), nothing they can do about it. This is how they get away with all that Clinton crap - as a public figure, he has to take it.

So should George, although in this case, the fact that he is a liar and a coward is such general knowledge that I feel much more comfortable with that than any idea that Chevy is like a rock, for example.

[The Stranger]

54. Bullshit. Calling into question the words of the Chief Executive would

constitute pure speech and subject to the greatest protections under the First Amendment. Many other stations are running this ad without this supposed fear of being sued for libel.

[Bozita]

12. Do they air infomercials? How about promos hidden in local newscasts?

Hypocricy ain't a virtue.

[Solly Mack]

13. Bush and Cheney can claim there are WMD in Iraq- and they air it

and air it constantly...along with any other false claims from other Bush-bots...BUT...they can't air this ad?

[NYC]

22. Can someone sue?

I am serious. Robb said the stations don't want to be sued for the content of Cindy Sheehan saying Bush lied, and she can't prove it.

Bush can't prove there were WMD. Can the stations be sued? Who could be the plaintiff?

[Edgewater_Joe]

14. Sinclair Station, By Chance?

Has anyone checked?

[ecoflame]

98. Not Sinclair - guess who?

Clear Channel.

[CoffeeCat]

16. Was CBS just as firm with those who ran the Swift-Boat ads against Kerry?

So, CBS and Fox require advertisers to PROVE that their ad claims are true.

How interesting.

I wonder if CBS and Fox made the producers of the Swift-Boat ads prove that their claims were true as well?

[IndianaGreen]

17. David Kay said there were no WMD in Iraq

and Kay was in charge of the large contingent of US troops and personnel that went to Iraq for the express purpose of finding WMD.

The station owners lied for Bush!

[ConcernedCanuk]

19. Our past PM Jean Chretien, he had it right regarding proof . . .

.
.
.

prime minister Jean Chretien on what would determine Canada's involvement for invasion of Iraq -

"I don't know, a proof is a proof. What kind of a proof is a proof? A proof is a proof and when you have a good proof it's because it's proven."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JQV/is_8_31/ai_92614056
______________________________________________________________________

I'll be forever grateful to Jean Chretien for keeping Canada out of the United States Iraqi massacre . .

[Amonester]

76. Ditto. - eom

[Scout1071]

20. If they require proof for every product or advertisement, they've

got a ton of work ahead of them. They better start checking to whether Chia Pets actually grow, whether the flowbie can truly cut hair, proof that you can really can slice thru a can, newspaper, and tomato with a Ginsu knife. Might as well look into being a millionaire overnight buying poor housing while you are at it.

Edited to add that they better start hiring some scientists' too to begin evaluating all those drug ads!

Otherwise, I don't want to see them accept money from any one of these companies.

[LibDemAlways]

59. My first thought, too.

TV is chock full of ads for crap that doesn't work as advertised. Stations would be going broke left and right if every advertising claim had to be proven true before an ad could air.

Besides, in the case of the WMDs, if they exist, where the hell are they? Cindy is merely pointing out that they haven't been found. Nothing untruthful there. These corporate whore wienies are simply doing what they do best -- trying to keep the truth from their audience.

[daleo]

21. There is no proof that God exists

But they probably take church based advertisements (and evangelist programming).

[alcibiades_mystery]

23. They claim that there is no proof that Bush lied

Which is a completely different thing than requiring proof for the absence of WMDs. For instance, if Bush had a good faith belief that there were WMDs, he couldn't be said to have lied, even if there aren't any. Logic helps, folks.

[Rex]

24. So claims that are now obvious lies by Bush are ignored

by the MSM, but when a woman suggests the lie the MSM covers for Bush.

They make it so obvious nowadays, I hope people stop watching the news and just turn to blogs.

[usregimechange]

25. Assuming no WMDs exist, how would you provide proof of that?

[Lindacooks]

27. You can't prove a negative, you effing CBS idiots.

I want to see proof that there ARE WMDs. If you can't provide it, that's proof that there aren't any.

[shadowknows69]

28. So CBS demands proof of all the claims of all their advertisers?

Somehow I think not. Ever run a Vioxx commercial CBS?

[proud patriot]

29. You have got to be fucking kidding me

:grr:

[NYC Liberal]

31. How about these:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

"By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt."

"Gosh, I don't think I ever said I'm not concerned about Osama bin Laden."

"But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

"I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not."


Need I go on? Cindy should compile a list of every lie (well, a lot of them - ALL of them could fill a book) and send it right over to CBS.

[agincourt]

32. Ok we find massive quanities of WMD,

Saddam didn't have the nerve to use them while we're blasting the blooming shit out of his country. Boy that's some blood thirsty enemy, sitting on gallons of VX gas and is too chicken to use it on our troops. I think someone might have made a teeny little mistake in threat assesment here.

[Miss Chybil]

33. Did they find WMD in Iraq? Did the president's own man not

say there were no weapons - even before the war started? Did the president say there were weapons? How much proof do they need?

[ashling]

34. I'm sure they will start

requiring proof of the claims by all of their other advertisers and infomercial sponsers.

I'vw always wondered, can you really just set it AND FORGET IT!
:rofl:

[Imagevision]

38. CBS? obviously a Bush contolled media

[bpilgrim]

39. some one needs to email them CNN's Dead Wrong ----------- ---- > MP3

http://news.globalfreepress.com/mp3/cnn/CNN_Presents_Dead_Wrong.mp3

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[rodeodance]

40. guess they are real spooked yet cause of Rathergate

[wli]

41. time for lawsuits vs. CBS

That's not what Sheehan's campaign was based on at all period.

[Imagevision]

43. The white house has finally noticed the growing threat in Cindy...!

[Bozita]

44. Court: Truth not necessary in newscasts (Read it and weep!)

Start with this:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2000-02-04/pols_media.html

Out-Foxed: Reporters Fired by Fox Come to Austin to Tell Their Story

Media Clips
BY LEE NICHOLS

February 4, 2000: The great irony of journalism is that excellent investigative reporting really isn't all that profitable. First, it involves a great deal of overhead to pay for research costs. And even though it may attract viewers, the commercial media's buck ultimately stops with advertisers, who may take offense at a particular report, and nervous executives, who may cringe in the face of possible lawsuits. If what television journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson allege is true, they are the victims of a textbook case of such cringing. In 1997, the husband-and-wife investigative team randomly visited seven dairy farms in Florida, and found that all seven were using the controversial recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH), despite promises by that state's dairy and grocery industries to keep milk from cows injected with rBGH off store shelves.

The two prepared a four-part series revealing this betrayal. The series explained why rBGH, although FDA-approved, is so controversial (its use is currently banned in Canada and the European Union because it has been linked to cancer in animal studies). According to Akre and Wilson, their then-employer, Fox-13 in Tampa, was set to run with the story -- until both station and Fox network management received a letter from lawyers for Monsanto, the agribusiness behemoth which produces rBGH.

Suddenly, the reporters say, station managers demanded changes in the script, including adherence to Monsanto's claims that rBGH was safe. After a protracted battle, the reporters say they were fired for standing up for the truth. Since then, they have filed suit against Fox demanding damages for being unjustly fired.

more...

OK folks, guess who won in the appellate court.

Clue: It wasn't the reporters.

[depakid]

45. Setting themselves up for re-regulation

divestiture and potentially license non-renewal.

I'm quite certain that there are Mme Defarges out there just counting up the misdeeds of the coporate media and their efforts at censoring the public airwaves. When the backlash comes, it's not going to be pretty- and the exec's had better hope that they've not run afowl of many laws- because there are going to be A LOT of people looking for payback.

[flordehinojos]

46. if only they were such purists and censors about everything else they put

on, on the air!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GoBlue]

47. Ludicrous logic here by the VP of sales at CBS Boise...

Transplanation: If I didn't know Bush was lying at the time, then how can you expect me to understand that he was afterwards?

Must have attended one of Condi's self-help seminars.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

48. Not quite.

They actually seem to be saying that there's no proof Bush lied about the absence of WMDs (which is, of course, still wrong.)

[Cocoa]

49. the ad has too much truth

that's what they're afraid of.

[durablend]

51. Both Idaho stations...

Boy THERE's a shocker

(what's *'s approval rating there, like 245%?)

[ecoflame]

97. Both Idaho stations?

What does this mean? Which two?

[Gman]

52. The null hypothesis is that there are no WMD's in Iraq, you idiot!

The null hypothesis (link for the statistically challenged) is that there are no WMD's in Iraq. You cannot reject the null hypothesis unless you have sufficient evidence to prove its not true. OMG, we're asking someone to THINK! Oh SHIT!!

This is the kind of critical thinking that is glaringly absent in the right wing nuts. Stuff like this drives me bonkers sometimes. This is one of them.

[OfireitupO]

53. They run religious ads

So wheres the proof that God exists?


The burden of proof is on the believers, in this case those who believe there are WMD. Even the Duelfer report and other reports claim no WMD. Thats good enough evidence and these stations are just trying to skirt around the fact that they dont like Sheehans message. They should be taken off the air in violation of the fairness doctrine.

[The Stranger]

55. Why has no one posted the stations' email, telephone and street addresses?

[meganmonkey]

56. I wish they were that thorough fact checking all their other ads

For shitty toxic cleaning products that say 'safe and effective' or bullshit credit consolidation 'nonprofit' loan sharks

:eyes:

(edit because I should be more thorough spell checking my own posts ;) )

[silvermachine]

57. This part blows my mind...

...I'm sure it is redundant to point this out but this quote:

<<<She claims the President lied about, among other things, the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There is no proof that we are aware of regarding the truthfulness of her claim. We require proof of claims such as this.>>>

Is it just beyond belief. Orwell was a rank amateur compared to this type of doublespeak.

[rman]

58. Downing Street Memos + Forged Yellow Cake Documents

(aka PLame leak) is plenty of proof.

[silvermachine]

62. Exactly...

...plus the real (i.e. "unfixed") intelligence that we did have. As you mentioned, the DSM pointed this out. It roils me when I hear GOP (and some Dem) talk about "bad" or "faulty" intelligence. It sounds like we did have at least some accurate intelligence, but since it wasn't what this administration wanted to hear regarding it's upcoming war plans, it was either ignored, discarded, or massaged until it had the opposite of it's original meaning.

[texpatriot2004]

64. I love the picture in your post. Indeed Somebody lied...

to Congress (an impeachable offense) and to the American People. I like what you point out, there is proof.

[antigone382]

60. We should flood their e-mail with copies of the DSM...

There's your proof, buddy; if you would have reported in the first place, you wouldn't look like such a damned idiot!

[karynnj]

61. A lie requires that Bush knew there were no WMD

(not just that there were no WMD). The response should be on the lines of Kerry's letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee asking they complete and release the Part II of the WMD study - which was suppose to be about whether the administration manipulated the intelligence. Kerry mentioned reviewing the DSM as part of this.

Did the same CBS affiliate have any problem airing the SBVT ads after they were debunked? (Note: even this represents a double standard. They are saying Sheehan has to prove the ad is true, while implicitly, even when JK proved the SBVT ads were lies, stations still played them.)

[KansDem]

63. Didn't CBS air Bush's SOTU speech in 2003?

When he gave his "list" of WMDs possessed by Saddam? There was no "proof" then, yet CBS televised his speech anyway...

CBS="Cock & Bull Stories"

[texpatriot2004]

65. "No Proof" ? I disagree. In addition to the docs mentioned above

in one of the posts s (i.e., Downing Street Memo and forged yellowcake docs) the following facts provide "proof":
1) No WMD's
2) No connection between Iraq and 9-11

All of these together provide plenty of "proof!"

[johnaries]

66. No proof? We need to email them the CIA final report

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7634313/

[ET Awful]

67. I'd be willing to bet they accepted Swift Boat ads with no questions asked

Ya think?

[Peace Patriot]

68. That's about it, for American democracy, folks--when a citizen can't

say that a politican is lying! (--and given today's world, not being able to say it on TV, in an ad you paid for, is the same as not being able to say it all.)

Goodbye, Sweet Country, Land of the Free, Home of the Brave! Nice knowin' ya!

[dxstone]

71. Now now, Patriot... buck up, hon!

Mark my words: they are beginning to DROWN in the sea of lies they have created... it's ALREADY HAPPENING.

Oh, what a tangled web they wove
When first they followed Karl Rove...

Keep heart, and hope!... you are one of the sane caring voices in this wilderness yet wild, and we are still very few, though growing daily; take some time off of DU, if need be, and return refreshed! We NEED you!

:hug:

d
ps: Stay clear of the MSM for awhile too! I remind you that too much exposure to this phony matrix culture can be HIGHLY TOXIC, as we all know!

pss: To the general question of the larger thread, all I can say is BOYCOTTS! HIT 'EM WHERE IT HURTS!!!
I don't think you need to have a Phd in history to know that boycotts and general strikes WORK! They get results!

[Generator]

74. I know between this and the Robertson shit

I'm ready to pack it in. I'm considering a post on "why should I not give up on this country?" I honestly am starting to hate America and not believe we have any morals left. In another time the things that Robertson or Coulter or some congressman have said-that one from NY I believe advocating killing journalists would have been enough to shame and shun and bankrupt them for life. Instead they get rich! They get air time! This country is immoral. Is lying to itself. Is wrong. Is not for FREEDOM. Is in denial. Is not a place I'm proud to be from anymore. And I'm not even that far left! I'm not a free Palestine/we stole the Indians land so let's give it back type.

Betweeen the corrupt robber barons and the fundamentalists that want America to be it's be the American Taliban and THE FUCKING WORTHLESS PRESS that should realize that are as much responsible for every rotten thing that will ever happen in the future as Geroge W. Bush is..I can't deal with it anymore. Coming to DU is just torture. I'd rather start ignoring it and planning to get the fuck out.

[lasttrip]

94. planning is a good thing.

you are not alone.

[mmonk]

69. Send them proof

about WMD's and fixing intelligence. Let them know what the world knows.

[tk2kewl]

70. There is no direct proof that Santa Clause doesn't exist either.

:crazy:

[Baconfoot]

87. Santa Claus does exist. NT

[Baconfoot]

72. What stations want is proof heLIED.He'd ALREADYbe impeached if we had that

But the standard for impeachment and the standard for showing a spot have never been and should never be the same. For goodness sake.

And I think it's clear he lied. (And, for the record, I'm also a LIHOPer who sometimes gets "that MIHOP feeling".) It requires making *gasp* inferences. But sometimes it's fair to make inferences. Sometimes the scenario which is more probable than any other scenario and against which no evidence has ever been procured is correct.

And of course, one wonders if they pretend to take themselves to have always been following this principle. I take that to be the case, and so I LAUGH and LAUGH.

I would prefer honesty. "We don't like your message or your aim and that's why we ran the Swiftboat ads but we will not run yours. Expletive. Exploitive. Thank you."

I really hope we get that proof though. I really hope this SOB (Son Of a Bush) gets impeached before his term of office is over.

[Fuzz]

73. Did they run a Swift Boat ad?

??

[Griffy]

80. MY thought too... did they get "PROOF" of those guys claims?

NO.. cause they are LIARS! Well.. lets getat h im.. keep pushing the truth.. its working, people are awakening!

BE the MEDIA!

[bejammin075]

82. Very good point

[Baconfoot]

84. Kerry doesn't count. You see it all goes back to the eggs and the moon..NT

[xxqqqzme]

75. they sure get uppity

when 'we' come up w/ the money to play by their rules.

[Dawgs]

77. FUCK CBS!! eom

[smoogatz]

78. Apparently they choose to believe Bush and Cheney were misled

by those wild-eyed, overzealous ideologues over at the CIA. I mean hey--that's pretty much the conclusion of the Senate report, right?

In other words, they're Freeptards.

[bejammin075]

83. Where's the proof that Cheney was told Iraq had nukes?

Cheney said that Iraq, in fact, has reconstituted nuclear weapons. Who told him that? Anybody? Or it just came out of Cheney's ass one day? WTF?

This double standard is incredible.

[smoogatz]

93. Chalabi told him. He told Wolfowitz and Feith the same thing.

Dr. Evil was simply misled by Chalabi--who is now pretending to run the Iraqi oil ministry (read: covering for Halliburton while they steal everybody blind).

[dxstone]

79. Important info! Kicked and nominated!

Thanx, Pirate Smile!
(LOVE that name, LOVE that tune!)

BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT! BOYCOTT!

ALL OF IT! THE SPONSORS AND ALL THEIR SHOWS!

I already have enough episodes of The Simpsons
and Family Guy to last a lifetime... NO MORE.

TV IS EVIL! JUST SAY NO!!!
TV is the chattering hypnobot in everyone's household...
Will the internet show the skills needed to defeat it?
Is our kung fu STRONG ENOUGH?... or is it WEAK???

Life these days... what incredible DRAMA!

"Yessss, tune in EVERY DAY, for:"

"YOUR INCREDIBLE MIRACULOUS HIGHLY-UNLIKELY AMAZING LIFE!!!"

The critics are raving!:

"A LOT more fun and interesting and thrilling and rewarding than BULLSHIT 24/7!"-- Joe Blow, Joe Blow Weekly

"You'll laugh! You'll cry! You'll feel! You'll LIVE!"-- The Moody Blues, having just popped in when they had a moment

"It's your show, people... might as well do it up right! You only go around once... so REMEMBER to BE HERE NOW!, and LIVE LARGE!"-- the ghost of the goddamned Elephant Man fer chrissakes!

[The Sleeper]

81. Find out the Hacks that pulled this crap...

find out who wrote the memos and made the calls.

For a few bucks in the right places, you can find out anything about anyone.

Clearly they are down with BushCo, or just fear them.

A dirty trick merits a dirtier response.

[David Zephyr]

85. Where Was the "Proof" Requirement for the Swift Boat Liars Ads?

A "new rule" that selectively discriminates.

[Gregorian]

86. It's because their sponsors make money from war.

And it's the same reason America is in big trouble. Corporations have no emotions.

[genieroze]

88. Sheehan accuses the President of the United States of being a liar

Well, if it walks like a duck and quacks then it's a duck.

[regularguy]

90. No Proof?!?!?!

There's also no proof that I'm more likely to get laid by driving some absurd car or using some stinky aftershave. Until that proof is provided, I guess they won't run those sort of ads either.

[Wizard777]

92. Sue them!

A friend and kindred spirit The NJ Weedman had to sue comcast to get his first amendment rights commercials aired. Some media outlets are interpretting greedom of the press to mean. Their freedom to supress freedom of speech. The 9th amendment protects the eqyality of people by ensuring the equality of their rights. Readers digest version of the 9th amendment. Their is no such thing as a greater right or rights. Basicall people are only as equal as their rights.

In the sales office they can do as they damn well please just like Bush. But when you haul them out of the self imposed anarchy and into court. They are then bound by rule of law. You can offer the yellow cake retraction from the SOTU and Wilson comments leading to Plamegate as proof that Bush not only lied but retaliated against those who exposed the truth of that claim. Bush's WMD are lies of ommission. He told bits and pieces of the truth. But he did not tell the WHOLE truth. You know it's like Bush being an honest man (as long as you don't mention all the lies and deception.)This will shift the burden of proof to CBS. They will then have to prove that Cindy is lying. I would even go as far as asking them to produce proof that Bush entertained a dessenting opinion on the WMD's In Iraq. This issue making it into any courtroom will have the Bush Administration sweating bullet. "Hello me, meet the real me." LMAO They are actually doing Cindy an off handed favor. They are providing a springboard to take the issue to court. You don't get to court because two parties are in agreeance. ;)

They can also tag the commercial with a disclaimer. The veiws represented in this commercial......... (See: springboard to court)

[Aunt Anti-bush]

95. There's no proof?

There is no proof that there ARE any, either! But despite that fact, we still marched right into war.

:mad:

[sakabatou]

100. That is a lot of Bullshit...

[neuvocat]

102. Bush admitted there weren't any WMD's.

I mean, what is wrong with these people? Do we really have to be more informed than the media?

[Arkana]

108. Fox I can understand, but CBS?

Have they had their fingers in their ears for the last year?

[NinetySix]

109. As Carl Sagan said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

It was the Administration that made the claim that Iraq possessed and intended to use WMDs in order to successfully instigate the invasion, and thus the burden of proof is on THEM, not on their detractors who point out the dearth of evidence to support their position.

Clearly the absence of evidence (as Rummy is fond of saying) is not evidence of absence; not to put too fine a point on it, the absence of evidence is evidence of nothing at all. But if I shoot someone in the back of the head, then claim that they were involved in a conspiracy to have me murdered, I don't think any judge on earth would put his grieving family on the spot and force them to disprove that such a conspiracy existed.

It is not the burden of Ms. Sheehan to prove a negative. If her claim that WMDs do not exist in light of their having not been discovered as yet is in error, then the Administration should simply disprove her by presenting them for inspection by the press and public. Until they do, the press have no business censoring claims which meet the standard of reasonable doubt.

[texpatriot2004]

112. More proof...courtesy of Donald Rumsfeld

"It was a memorandum signed by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, authorizing a short list, maybe 6 or 8 techniques: use of dogs; stress positions; loud music; deprivation of food; keeping the lights on, those kinds of things," Karpinski said. "And then a handwritten message over to the side that appeared to be the same handwriting as the signature, and that signature was Secretary Rumsfeld's. And it said, 'Make sure this happens' with two exclamation points. And that was the only thing they had. Everything else had been confiscated."