Replies

Notice how the media isn't talking about the Saddam tapes.

ABC aired some of them and deliberately (I'm sure) misrepresented them. The translator for those tapes, a former UN official, called into the Sean Hannity show the other day.

He said that when ABC aired the tapes, they showed the English version of what Saddam was saying to be that he warned the US that a WMD attack was coming but it wouldn't come from Iraq.

The UN translator said that Saddam ACTUALLY said that a WMD attack was coming but Iraq would use proxies so it couldn't be traced back to them.

And all the MSM that I could find that did talk about the tapes tried to portray Saddam as the most reasonable person on the tapes and commented that he wasn't crazy, which the administration tried to say he was.

Yeah, they did misrepresent them just that way.

They made it sound like he was saying WMD attack was coming as a general social prediction, not as a plan.

They did play the other part where the other adviser talked about how 'it could be done by an individual, no need to blame a state for it' so you can connect the dots of the TRUE meaning.

Thats the dirty slyness of the MSM, I figured thats what they were talking about, but the separate English transitions do not say it. Only if you take the 5 or 6 clips together would you even think of it, and the story of misinterpretation just confirms it.

Good Morning Everyone

I'm a little late today and trying to wake-up.

I just heard Timmy talk about who's coming up on the round table and one of the topics they were going to discuss was the VP and reaction of the media. This ought to be rich, since David (I can throw a tantrum if I want to) Gregory is on the panel. Apparently, he has told a different version of the story

The week that was at the White House (David Gregory "blogs" his side of story)
MSNBC ^ | 2/17/06 | David Gregory

Posted on 02/18/2006 4:31:49 AM PST by frankjr

It's been a rough and tumble week in the White House press room over the Cheney hunting story. Many viewers have written me with praise and plenty of criticism about my questioning of press secretary Scott McClellan.

Let me say at the outset that I was wrong to lose my temper at Scott McClellan. I've worked well with Scott since we first met during the 2000 campaign. Monday, he suggested my aggressive questioning about the disclosure of the hunting accident was a stunt for the cameras. He said this during a morning OFF CAMERA briefing, which undercut his point. Furthermore, I considered it a cheap shot. I said, "Don't be a jerk to me personally, just answer the question." I regret saying that because it's never appropriate to speak that way and because it created a distraction from the issues at hand.

Putting that aside, I do not apologize for asking tough questions about this story. I'm in the business of getting information -- as much of it as possible....I have not made any judgments about the facts of this story as it pertains to what happened on the Armstrong ranch....Mr. Cheney, in my view, acted as if he had something to hide.

Yet the debate playing out in the blogosphere, cable airwaves and on talk radio pits the Vice President against an allegedly left-wing, overly cynical, prissy White House press corps in a tizzy because it wasn't the first to know and angry because it hates the President and Vice President anyway. This is nonsense....Have you Googled transcripts from the Clinton administration at the height of the Lewinsky scandal?

(Excerpt) Read more at dailynightly.msnbc.com ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1581030/posts

"The UN translator said that Saddam ACTUALLY said that a WMD attack was coming but Iraq would use proxies so it couldn't be traced back to them.

And all the MSM that I could find that did talk about the tapes tried to portray Saddam as the most reasonable person on the tapes and commented that he wasn't crazy, which the administration tried to say he was."

I missed that Hannity show. Wish I would have caught it.

I am reading the book "Saddam's Secrets" by Georges Sada. General Sada seems to agree with the administration regarding Saddam. I lost count of the times that Gen. Sada referred to Saddam as a thug, brute, gangster and other such verbs. He writes often about Saddam's lust for power and how Saddam would do anything to get power and anything to keep it. So far, it is a really good book.