Posted on 08/28/2005 12:07:17 AM PDT by RadicalSon2
As the American people wise up about the war in Iraq, and the shifting rationale behind it, they aren't letting the press off the hook.
Good for them.
As President Bush led the nation into the invasion of Iraq, the evidence he cited as justification for the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime was too often echoed by news organizations that holstered the skepticism they customarily bring to their work. As a result, any doubts about the wisdom of the war focused on strategy rather than factual truth.
Hussein's purported possession of weapons of mass destruction was accepted as established fact. His alleged attempt to build nuclear bombs was reported without the qualifying statements it deserved. And members of the Bush administration were given greater credibility than those who remained skeptical, including United Nations chief weapons inspector Hans Blix.
The public now knows that. It says so in a new Gallup poll commissioned by the McCormick Tribune Foundation of Chicago.
Sixty-one percent of the poll's respondents said the press keeps them well informed on military and national security issues. That might not sound so bad, but 79 percent gave the same response to the same question in 1999.
More telling is that more than 60 percent of people criticized the news media and the government for failing to inform them adequately before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.
The problem wasn't that news organizations uniformly expressed support for an invasion -- some did and some did not -- but that they almost universally confirmed the factual basis for it. Since that factual basis has been found to have been untrue, some of the larger organizations responsible, notably including the New York Times, have publicly acknowledged their errors.
Many smaller organizations, however, served as an amen chorus for the drumbeat of news about how dangerous Iraq was. This page, for example, opposed the invasion itself, but spoke uncritically of Saddam Hussein's dangers, at least to his neighbors.
It turned out Hussein was a paper tiger, in more ways than one. His menace to the world existed only on paper -- and in the nation's newspapers.
Most Americans apparently have learned that lesson. Let's hope most of the news organizations responsible for it have. -- J.F.
I mean, he looks a little like Vicente Fox, kinda handsome, really, with that moustache and all, so he should be forgiven for his petty crimes, brought to the United States to ensure a 'fair' trial and have his country, palaces and mistresses returned to him. He was just a paper tiger, doncha know. Surely I don't actually HAVE to put a sarcasm tag here.
Yep, you're right -- amazing, isn't it?
The good-guy Commie Gorby gets himself a Foundation, a speech-making tour, and becomes a capitalist millionaire.
Murderous Saddam (were he released) would be on Larry King the next day, rubbing his "nose" on Dan Rather, and signing book deals. And don't forget how Harkin and Kerry fawned over Daniel Ortega, OR how Jimmy Carter has kissed Castro's derriere.
Fact is elitist Hollywood and MSM socialists love anti-America, anti-heroes -- and hate the guys in White Hats like Reagan AND his (our) America.
In fact you did insinuate it by the above statement. And you can call it whatever you want, however Constitutionally there was never a formal declaration of war. Just passage of an open-ended statement giving the executive branch the supposed power to wage 'war' on any number of enemies at some point in the future. Of course there hasn't been an official declaration of war since 1941. Look to WWII and even WWI for official declaration of wars
In case you didn't know, the Islamo-terrorists declared war against the United States way before 9/11.
That's a maybe. However none of these 'Islamo-terrorists' came from Iraq. The main purpose of the police action in Iraq (according to the executive branch and most of the MSM which is now maligned here) was the issue of WMDs, of which none have been found
Maybe I don’t understand but why is the most sophisticated Anthrax laboratory *in the world* not considered a means of making a weapon of mass destruction?
Why is it that Saddam sent the head of his nuclear production scientist to buy plutonium not considered issues with regards to WMD, just because he was refused sell of the plutonium?
Maybe I am missing something?
You are missing a lot.
I agree. As soon as they started firing on our planes that was enough. Nothing else needed to be said.
You are missing a lot.”
That statement by it's self is trolling. Please don't do that.
I am listening... I am all ears.
Yes you are
The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.SOTU 2003The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hadn't accounted for that material. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed it.
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.
25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent, and 29,984 of prohibited munitions are 'missing'. Oh but I forgot. What's the latest line? Oh yes, they're sitting in the deserts of Syria...
why is the most sophisticated Anthrax laboratory *in the world*
You mean to tell me that Iraq has a more sophisticated Anthrax laboratory than here in the US or even in Russia? Wow, and not one liter of the 25,000 liters of anthrax that were 'missing'
Why is it that Saddam sent the head of his nuclear production scientist to buy plutonium not considered issues with regards to WMD, just because he was refused sell of the plutonium?
Well it's sort of hard to consider it an issue with regards to WMD if they couldn't buy the plutonium isn't it? I'm sure somewhere in the world another tinpot dictator (probably one not supported in the past by the US however) has looked to buy plutonium. Should we invade that nation as well?
"You see, democracy is a form of luxury, you can afford it when you are advanced and prosperous, either when you have large educated middle class or many slaves to support you (like in Athenian democracy). In a messy situations like XXc Iraq or European "Dark" Ages the monarchical or dictatorial power was the only VIABLE solution (with the exception of small rich city states based on commerce like Florence or Novgorod)."........now I'm sure you will exactly explain to us how rich and how advanced the 13 colonies were in 1776, now. Inquiring minds would like to know. Thanks Mo.
This is a very important issue, that most people seem to really miss understand. During a declaration of war the country is in a military state.
For example, my great grandfather owned thousands of acres of beach property in California that he was pumping oil out of before WWII. The oil tanks that the Japanese destroyed in California during the war he built with his own hands. He got a letter that the US government which stated they were taking the land and that was it, they kicked him out of his own home and never got it back. That is a delcoration of war.
The war against the terrorists doesn’t need this great of government power to win.
Yes they did. The 25,000 liters of the most sophisticated Anthrax in the world is still missing.
“Well it's sort of hard to consider it an issue with regards to WMD if they couldn't buy the plutonium isn't it? “
Why? Under the UN protocols they where not allowed to buy plutonium. Why where they trying to buy it?
Not necessarily. However in this instance, the 'war' was against another nation, namely Iraq and Afghanistan, in removing their current leadership. The same as with Korea and Vietnam. These actions were against a government and in none of the situations was war officially declared
Good catch. It seems we got ourselves a long term DU troll.
The 1500 pink elephants surrounding Hussein's main housing are still missing too. What? No proof they didn't exist so by US standards we'll just accept they did and begin a search for them.
Why? Under the UN protocols they where not allowed to buy plutonium. Why where they trying to buy it?
Why do I care? It's not the business of the federal government to be interfering with the business of other sovereign nations. And when did it become standard for 'conservatives' to rely on the UN for anything? Less than a decade ago, Republicans were calling for exiting the UN. Now they use it and the research of the UN to justify their police actions. I suppose when you don't have anything else, you'll rely on even the flimsiest of evidence
Not necessarily. (then you side tracked) “
What do you mean by ‘not necessarily.
You have to go to be kidding me. It was none of Saddams business to attack the WTC twice, attack the USS cole, attempt to blow up the UN building and so on.
Are you saying the UN counted 1500 pink elephants surrounding Hussein’s main house? They could have been painted pink as far as I know, but if the UN said they where there who am I to say? Or are you saying the UN miss counted?
go = be
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.