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 even remotely pretend to be impartial, just might be inclined to report things a bit differently than others do.

        I can quote allegedly impartial news sources [cbsnews.com] who would be happy to suggest that perhaps things are not what we thought:

        (CBS) CBS News has learned that barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.

        I can find plenty of other citations, just as I am sure that you can. If they're to be found, though, it would be nice that they not come from such a blatantly biased source. For example, the former CIA director's "bombshell testimony" (their words, not mine):

        "I believe it is definitely more likely than not that some degree of common knowledge between [al-Qaeda and Iraq] was involved here."

        Ignoring how terribly wishy-washy that statement is, I turn to the headline, which reads "CIA's Woolsey Tells Court: Iraq Involved in 9/11". The story doesn't say that. The story doesn't even remotely say that. According to the story, Woolsey lays out many suggestive references, but the title is completely misleading (something that is not uncommon on News Max). Of course, I could just rebut this by pointing out another blatatantly biased [counterpunch.org] site and just argue "but they're right" :)

        • 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 th