Face the Nation: My letter to Bob Schieffer

**disclaimer: I used some of the rhetoric authored by DUers from our discussion last night...I admit it. Hope that's okay**

Dear Bob:

I just watched the interview with Condi Rice. I appreciate that you asked the tough questions of her. (Reference ABC's The Note where they just call this a bunch of politicizing by Dem candidates to muster voter support from the average anti-war candidates! Arrggh).

I was appalled at Rice's suggestion that pre-war intelligence is a just a simple "datapoint". The American people allowed Bush to have his little war because he convinced the populace that Saddam posed an imminent threat to the USA. "In "45 min" Saddam could blow us to smitherenes!" The forged Niger 'intelligence' was SALIENT to their argument. It was not part of a long list of "datapoints." The arrogance of this administration is infuriating. A "mistake" in a speech is not the issue. We went to WAR...we killed probably 10,000 people. We have bankrupted our country. We can't get out of Iraq for YEARS! The World hates the USA. The cost of this "war" could re-fund every bankrupt state in our country and stabilize what looks to be a depression-bound path. More terrorists have been recruited in the last 6 months than ever before. And at this point, I can hardly blame any person for hating the USA. We are the most dangerous rogue nation on earth. Everyone knows it.

A datapoint? A datapoint?

The MOST insulting part of this entire thing is the White House could care less WHO forged the Niger document or WHY or HOW it got into our hands. They don't care ...and as Ari ends his term as white house press secretary (and gets an award for impeccable timing!), the White House only wants us to stop talking about this. Please don't..... please don't bury this under the invisible rug. If the White House had been legitimately "fooled" with this intelligence, it would be looking for heads to roll in regard to WHO forged the document. They only want the press to stop bringing it up.

Bottom line: Cheney and Bush needed to dazzle the American public with fear of NUCLEAR bombs raining over us. And they trumped up their case for war because they wanted to go to war. Months into Iraq, no WMD found. Hmmmmmm, and the UN inspectors couldn't have been given a few months to search in March? That's the argument. Everything Condi cited in her "Saddam was such a bad guy" diatribe was info gained from the UN. Why couldn't 1000s of lives and many of our own soldiers' lives been saved by letting the UN do its job. Apparently, Condi sure appreciates all the intelligence the UN had obtained. The answer, and we ALL know it: Bush wanted a war. And he wanted the oil. And he wanted to line the pockets of the Carlyle Group and Halliburton. Mission Accomplished indeed.

Does no one remember that MILLIONS of people the world over marched in protest of this war. Millions here and abroad. Millions of regular people who knew the score. We all knew that this "imminent threat" stuff was bullcorn. We all knew that the White House was creating their own case for war in spite of the facts that Saddam was (1) not connected to 9/11; and (2) that he did not pose an imminent threat to the USA or anyone. We all knew this. We didn't need an intelligence agency to tell us yea or nea. Yet, our numbers were greatly minimized and we were painted by the PRESS as unpatriotic. We were abjectly slandered by the press and by the White House. How did MILLIONS of people call this one correctly and the White House just sort of made a little mistake? The USA's character in the world arena is forever tainted. The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive strike will forever shed a dark shadow on our reputation -- very similar to our legacy in regard to slavery.

And she calls this a datapoint? I am not only infuriated; I am astonished at the White House's ability to just wave off any bad info. If you recall, the White House kept saying: "we have the intelligence to justify this; there are things we can't say because it would threaten National Security." The only threat to our national security is the Bush Administration. To watch this great nation go down the tubes is one thing; to be LIED to and told later by the White House that the LIE was a simple 'datapoint' is infuriating.

But, thanks for asking the hard questions. Condi really wanted to get out of that interview, didn't she? Just get out her talking points and flee. I am sure she will have a much more pleasant experience over at Faux.

But I have to ask, when will the press insist that Mr. Bush actually answer some unscripted questions here on US soil? He needs to explain himself. Of course, the public has gotten used to the idea that Bush doesn't really know anything about anything. His "people" tell him just what he needs to know and tell him what to say, when to say it, how to say it and, most importantly, when to shut up. Do we even have a president? Apparently, everything is taken care of by agency heads. Oh, how I long for the Carter days -- when we had a president who worked really hard -- who ran the show -- who was so involved with his job that he could actually answer questions about what was going on rather than sending out royal messengers to issue the daily proclamation. The American public has bought into this arrangement, but I feel that they are going to wise up and boot these crooks and murderers out in 2004, if not before via impeachment.

Robin
Portland, OR

When you write letters to these media types I suspect your better off trying to keep it short and concise.

1 paragraph with you point in the first sentence.

They get hundreds and even thousands of letters, of which they might read a handful - better to make a quick point to as many of them as possible rather than send lengthly letters to single individuals.

Just my opinion anyway.

Imajika

I generally send one or two paragraph e-mails to columnists, and they generally will answer that they read them. Also, avoid dramatics. Just state your point. For example,
I would say to him

-good job with interview
-adminstration answers aren't convincing
-keep asking until you get satisfactory answers, don't allow these important questions to remain unanswered.

That's just what works for me, but your letter is fine, I just doubt it will get read because of length

I am sure if we just keep sending them, we can shame these media people to do their job....at least some of them.

I say keep it all.

. . . not too long. Today was an important day for the Sunday talk shows and
I believe your letter of support will be read and appreciated by Bob Schieffer.

TYY

Well, that makes you an EDITOR!
It's the messsage that counts, not who gets to be the messenger.
I don't think it's too long. I don't think you're expecting him to break in to programming and read it on the air. You just want to let him know how one viewer feels. And you're helping give him a little bit of the pulse of the nation.
Well done.

Like saying Ari should get a medal for impeccable timing on his exit.

Oh, how I long for the Carter days -- when we had a president who worked really hard -- who ran the show --

Either would be preferable!!!

A great letter!

Not that Clinton wouldn't have worked in that part.

But Carter.....here was a guy who WORKED! Always had his sleeves rolled up (literally) working, reading, talking, thinking, worrying, not sleeping, working, reading, talking, thinking........ He epitomized the puritanical concept of a putting in a hard day's work.

And bush? Can anyone call what he does anything other than a spokesperson......and a crappy one at that? Or a White House cover model? Captain Posseur America!

Wish I could write something half that articulate.

Thanks!

:-)

But you know.......writing the letter is more for me than them! Kind of a bad strategy, I realize. I should want to do everything possible to make it "easy" for them to hear me...... BUT when I write these letters.......I have a choice to EXPRESS myself fully and with spirit or repress all the frustration and have a coronary! No kidding!

I will have to find a middle-ground. Thanks for pointing that out to me!

You have so much to say and don't want to leave anything out. If I were editing this, I might have left out a few opinion phrases for succinctness, but think it is fine as it is. If you think of the letters that they must receive, you must realize that whatever you say has to put you out in front because you are informed and express yourself well. What you said about Condoleeza Rice is accurate. She has spewed outright lies on other shows and never expects to be called on anything.

I used to work with the commercial networks. Bob Scheiffer might well agree with you, if he actually got a chance to read your letter. He is a real veteran and I will never forget what he said on the night of the 2000 presidential election. Since it was finally apparent that Bush* had ``barely won,'' Bob Scheiffer said that since it was obvious that Bush* ``had no mandate'' it was incumbent on him to put together a ``bi-partisan administration.'' Of course, we all know that he has done nothing of the kind. He has gathered one of the most partisan administrations in history, even bringing back Reagan hard-liners that his own father threw out. As a real news veteran, Bob Schieffer would know this, but so must most of his staff.

I liked the bit about Carter. You will know I agree with you and am a fellow admirer of his when you check out my avatar. Keep writing to the news divisions. They need to be shaken up by people like us.:-)