Joe Republican wrote:
You see, these sites are meant to distort the facts. They are meant to completely ignore the truth, they are propaganda sites, and Fox News falls into the same category. So does DU for the other side, Michael Moore follows suit, albeit not as bad as the others. I have my own personal feelings on Moore and he adds spin when the spin isn't needed, so he in turn ends up hurting his cause rather then helping it.
Moore might not be considered as bad as the others if you think the same of Leni Riefenstahl.
Regarding anonymous sources, there are few news organisations that do not use them.
From the NYT story on aluminum tubes for example:
New York Times wrote:
But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.
Spin and propaganda exist in all news outlets. Some is more pronounced with certain organisations. Subjectivity colours each individual's view of said organisations.
McGentrix wrote:ehBeth wrote:McGentrix wrote:Yeah, I am sure another 12 years and 300,000 dead Iraqis would have been great for Saddam.
So, this was really about protecting Iraquis?
This discussion in this thread is, yes. If you are alluding to the grander discussion of the war, which I assume you are, then you are just trying to be clever.
It was a straight out question.
We still don't have the entier picture.. Why did we find chemical protective clothing and antidote in the foxholes of the enemy on our way to Baghdad at the start of the war? The question is not whether or not he "had" the WMD's. The questions we all should be asking is what did he do with them? He may have been bluffing everyone around him. If that was the case, he got what he deserves anyway! Not letting the scientists be interviewed without minders, is NOT cooperating! Saddam choose war, he wouldn't come clean. We even offered him exile. The days of cat and mouse are over, and rightly so!
Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2004 10:15 p.m. EDT
Condi: Saddam's WMDs Possibly Smuggled to Syria
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday that a report indicating that Saddam Hussein smuggled his weapons of mass destruction to Syria just before the U.S. attacked last year is "a scenario that has to be looked into."
"We still don't have clarity about what role Syria may have played in the movement of weapons one way or another before the war," she told radio host Sean Hannity.
"But it's certainly something that is worth clarifying," Dr. Rice added.
The top U.S. security official was responding to a report in Monday's Washington Times citing new intelligence suggesting that Saddam made arrangements to facilitate the evacuation to Syria of his WMD stockpile.
"Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries," the Times said, citing an upcoming report by the U.S.'s Iraq Survey Group.
Rice said that Saddam posed a weapons of mass destruction threat to the world whether or not he actually had WMD stockpiles in 2003.
"He had used weapons of mass destruction. He knew how to build them. He was maintaining the infrastructure," she said. "At best, he was waiting until the sanctions were off so he could fully resume his programs."
Rice also confirmed that Saddam had acquired the technology to enrich uranium sometime before the U.S. attacked in 2003, and had amassed a 1.8-ton stockpile of low-enriched uranium before he was deposed.
"A lot of that enriched uranium comes from that period [before the first Gulf War]," Rice said. "But also, what we know is that he had a lot of very sophisticated designs for nuclear weapons. He had the scientific knowledge."
Hmmm - not on BBC (I get news alerts from them, and just checked their news sites)
NYT - nothing...
Reuters - nothing......
(Well, there was this - Rumsfeld saying he didn't mean it when he said there was no strong, hard evidence linking Iraq and Al Quaeda:
"Rumsfeld Says He Was Misunderstood on Iraq-Al Qaeda
Tue Oct 5, 2004 10:08 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday he was misunderstood when he stated hours earlier that he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda.
"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between al Qaeda and Iraq," Rumsfeld said in a Web site statement issued following remarks he made to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Monday.
"Today at the Council, I even noted that 'when I'm in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say "I don't know, because I'm not in that business, but I'll tell you what the CIA thinks" and I read it'."
In the new statement, issued on the Pentagon Web site, Rumsfeld listed what he said were arguments for suggesting links between al Qaeda and Iraq under Saddam, including what the CIA regarded as "credible evidence" that al Qaeda leaders had sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Rumsfeld, during a question-and-answer session before the Council on Foreign Relations, had been asked to explain the connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network -- one of the U.S. arguments for launching a war on Iraq.
He replied: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.")
Still searching...
Even British soldiers don't watch the BBC.
cjhsa wrote:Even British soldiers don't watch the BBC.
Well, obviously reasoned by this, your deep insite view, the SSVC is the official tv broadcast
(Okay, 1/3 is taken over from ITV)
.... and of course it's just a fake, that BBC is in the cable nets on British military demands
Huh?
It was widely reported that British soldiers were unhappy with the BBC's early coverage of the war in Iraq and switched to other news sources.
How many British soldiers do you know???
How many times did YOU watch BBC with British soldiers?
How often did YOU watch BBC???
Because soldiers don't like war coverage means the coverage is inaccurate?
A new standard for objectivity! Kind of like athletes who never read certain columnists. Must be the writer is wrong...
I think the BBC revealed troop positions. Pissed a lot of folks off. There's such a thing as irresponsible journalism.
Yes - practiced a lot by such dumb outlets as Fox etc...
cjhsa wrote:I think the BBC revealed troop positions. Pissed a lot of folks off. There's such a thing as irresponsible journalism.
so i guess you'd agree with me that geraldo needs to have his ass kicked in and fox deserves heavy sanctions for treason by allowing said geraldo to broadcast american troop positions 'round the world ??
by the way, walter, a question;
a right wing friend of mine (and he is one of my closest friends) is telling me that the british navy also ceased receiving broadcasts of bbc. any truth to that one?
I don't know who CNS news is or where they got their info, but this is where I get my news and it is CLEARLY giving a different story.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9836140.htm
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/ap/20041005/ap_on_re_us/us_iraq
squinney, Bush and company have already changed their tune from "having connections," to "Alwawi was in Iraq when Saddam was president."
I'd recommend a drug to anaesthetize your CNS.
It's likely to be expensive during this administration.
Maybe I'm wrong. They haven't got Bin Laden but they do have all those opium fields to harvest in Afghanistan.
cjhsa wrote:I think the BBC revealed troop positions. Pissed a lot of folks off. There's such a thing as irresponsible journalism.
So again: how many British troops do you know - and how often do you watch the BBC?
Quote:WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said on Tuesday he was misunderstood when he stated hours earlier that he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda.
"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between al Qaeda and Iraq," Rumsfeld said in a Web site statement issued following remarks he made to the Council on Foreign Relations in New York on Monday.
"Today at the Council, I even noted that 'when I'm in Washington, I pull out a piece of paper and say "I don't know, because I'm not in that business, but I'll tell you what the CIA thinks" and I read it'."
In the new statement, issued on the Pentagon Web site, Rumsfeld listed what he said were arguments for suggesting links between al Qaeda and Iraq under Saddam, including what the CIA regarded as "credible evidence" that al Qaeda leaders had sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Rumsfeld, during a question-and-answer session before the Council on Foreign Relations, had been asked to explain the connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network -- one of the U.S. arguments for launching a war on Iraq.
He replied: "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.")
The ties were there. When they speak of "strong, hard evidence" it means there isn't yet a contract that states Osama and so and so, with their signatures on it. He can't comment on the new found evidence because it has come from Iraqi intelligence documents. This is not our CIA putting forward the informtion...
It's all coming out, it doesn't happen overnight. There are hundreds of documents they have to go over. Just because there isn't anything we can confirm through our govt, doesn't mean it isn't true...
Xena wrote:It's all coming out, it doesn't happen overnight. There are hundreds of documents they have to go over. Just because there isn't anything we can confirm through our govt, doesn't mean it isn't true...
Seems, you really believe what you quote.
So, why does no-one just opene those sources, which gave your administration these "facts" (remember: "Fact is ...."?)?
