Slash Boxes
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.
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 [], 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 [] (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. However, whether or not he served under Clinton is irrelevant to whether or not he is correct.

            The point that I was making was twofold. First, your source was a site that has a very strong conservative bias and it's fair to keep that in mind while reading what they have to say. Second, the headline was flat out wrong. It read "CIA's Woolsey Tells Court: Iraq Involved in 9/11". The problem is, the article didn't say that. Woolsey didn't say that. The article repeatedly quotes Woolsey as "suggesting" (their words, not mine) that Iraq may had foreknowledge of 9/11. Reading through it carefully makes it clear that this man was speculating about an involvement. That is not what the headline read. I was pointing out the fact that the article didn't match the headline. That bears repeating: the article did NOT MATCH THE HEADLINE. If this is "journalism" ... well, that leads to the next paragraph.

            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. 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. Mind you, most so-called liberals in the US are just as ridiculous in their thoughts and arguments, so please do not take this as an attack solely on conservative politics in the US!

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

              • 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