Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • Over in Great Britain, Tony Blair is taking a lot of heat because those weapons were the primary reason for our unpopular invasion. Over here in "love it or leave it" America, you don't hear a lot about it. Colin Powell cites plagiarized intelligence reports (which Britain later admitted) and forged documents (that no one claims to know the origin of) and yet no seems to care.

    So we're going after Saddam for the weapons but we couldn't find them. Eh, maybe we were going after him for his role in 9/11.

    • The justification to invade Iraq was that Iraq didn't live up to their commitment to 'fully, proactively and immediately' disarm as required by Resolution 1441. Everyone who signed on to Resolution 1441, the entire UN Security council, was clear on the fact that Iraq did possess such weapons.

      It was clear that they were playing games with the UN Inspectors. It's also clear from what we are finding that they had an active program to develop or research WMDs.

      The fact that they may have been busy destroying

      • You know, when I read a news story about Iraq on Arab News [arabnews.com], I am painfully aware that they have their own agenda and will see things from a different viewpoint. I think this is an important thing to remember, particularly when I notice (and I have on more than one occassion) that their coverage of an event is often radically different from US coverage.

        If one accepts that to be a reasonable point of view, then it's also fair to point out that a news site such as News Max [newsmax.com] (linked to by you) which does not

        • CBS News impartial! Give me a break. Read former CBS news reporter Bernard Goldberg's book Bias about the extreme liberal bias at CBS.

          Hey, maybe you should become a journalist, the way you spin the facts and selectively quote. First, you impune Woolsey as being a former CIA Director (under Clinton, BTW, so that should help to eliminate Republican slant). Then you take that one quote out of the article and spin it to make it seem like Woolsey only supports my point tangentially or weakly.

          You said that

          • jordan, I try write carefully, so please read it carefully and do not accuse me of saying things that I did not say. I'm a pretty easy going person and I don't mind at all if you disagree with me. I do mind if you misrepresent what I say. I did not write that CBS is impartial. I wrote that CBS is 'allegedly' impartial. Further, I pointed out that Woolsey was no longer the director of the CIA because you did not and I felt that it was relevant to whether or not he is privy to current information. Howev

              • I did not write that CBS is impartial. I wrote that CBS is 'allegedly' impartial.

              Oh, come on, if you weren't presenting CBS as impartial in contradistinction to Arab News, what were you doing? I thought the use of 'allegedly' was just an attempt at irony. It seems that there is support for this as you imply below that CBS could only be expected to have a conservative slant due to their ownership.

              • Further, I pointed out that Woolsey was no longer the director of the CIA because you did not and I felt that it was relevant to whether or not he is privy to current information. However, whether or not he served under Clinton is irrelevant to whether or not he is correct.

              Look, when I point out that Woolsey was the 'Clinton CIA Director' there is a very clear implication that he is no longer CIA Director. Otherwise, I would have said just 'CIA Director'.

              Anyway, we're talking about bias and slant, I wanted to give you an intelligence source that you couldn't impune as being in the direct employ of George W. Bush.

              Actually, I've heard Woolsey speak and as a former high up Intelligence official, he says that he is privy to current intelligence briefings. In any case, the man who was CIA director during the period that Al Qaeda grew to power might have a lot of good information, I would think. I guess your unsourced ramblings about how intelligence sources have found "no evidence" are better?

              • And as for the "liberal bias" of CBS news, if you truly believe that the multinational conglomerate that owns CBS news is somehow some hotbed of liberalism, I must say that I don't understand your rationale.

              The News organizations pride themselves on a great deal of independence from their corporate sponsors. The New York Times is also owned by a large corporation and it takes the liberal side of every issue I can recall in its editorial pages. They also specialize in the slanted headline, that you find so totally unacceptable in NewsMax.

              • Goldberg's ridiculous book is a typical example of the sloppy "journalism" that is accepted without much comment. I remember picking it up and reading through it at a bookstore and I was absolutely aghast at it, but so many people want to buy into whatever supports their personal belief system.

              Of course FAIR, an organization whose entire d'etret is to counter AIM, a group that was formed to point out liberal bias in the media, would find Goldberg's book 'ridiculous'. I find their review to be long on attack and short on substance, however.

              Do you recall, specifically, what you found so horrifying about Goldberg's book? Since it's not big on the one-liners or quick hit, I don't see how you can immediately get a flavor for it in just a quick browsing at the book store. In particular, I think his original WSJ Editorial [mediaresearch.org] is thoughtful.

              • (and I wrote a lot more here, but I realized that it would not serve any purpose, so I deleted it)

              Well you won't get any points from me for restraint after you posted this baiting comment:

              Somehow, those who support the war seem to have no problem that every justification for it has fallen flat and they're quite happy to pounce on another one.

              I'm someone who supports the war and I don't think ANY justification has fallen flat.