Posted on 02/22/2006 11:40:16 AM PST by pissant
A thin veneer of politeness on top of sneering scorn.
;-)
It is the Friday following the Intelligence Summit weekend. A few minor mentions (misinformation) on CNN. A few interviews on Fox.
That's it.
No headlines, no breaking news.
Saddam HAD wmd's!!!!!
How can this news be ignored by the media?
How?
How much time has been spent on the Bush Lied mantra, cherry picking of intelligence, bogus intelligence, on and on.
Saddam HAD wmd's!!!!
the silence is deafening.
Can someone please give me an explanation that makes sense. Not the standard 'msm is biased'. For god sakes, it didn't even warrant a 'FOX NEWS ALERT'. Am I to believe, as the lefty's are saying (laughing really), that the translations are bogus, that if it were true, Bush and Co. would be shouting it from the roof tops!, Help. I really need to understand this.
Thanks.
Now some experts are saying that those WMDs did exist, but that they are not in Iraq anymore.
So.......................
iraq got rid of them, wasn't that what was asked of them?
The Russian embassy informed the coalition that they were moving their embassy staff to Syria. US Central Command spokesman Brigadier General Vincent Brooks himself said the coalition military was aware the convoy was leaving. It makes a good story that the convoy was moving WMDs out of Iraq. The convoy contained the Russian ambassador.
§¯d|<elieve that what was asked of Saddam was that he show proof that they had been destroyed, NOT that they had been smuggled out of the country, with the help of Russia, to Syria, where they had a great chance of being divied out to the terrorists.
Hannity promised to have Tierney back to talk about the tapes AFTER the summit was over and 'the world' had been informed. Did that ever happen and I missed it?
I'm disappointed that it took until post #11 for someone to note that.
Why is it that news organizations don't have someone with at least a semi-technical background vet articles of this nature?
Shouldn't the "war on terror" be aimed at russia and syria?
"Shouldn't the "war on terror" be aimed at russia and syria?"
I am no war strategist, but I believe that all things considered, those 'in the know', must consider the long-term, bigger picture as regards Russia. IMO, however, should we need to take action against Iran, action will also be taken against Syria. Sort of a two-fer. Just my opinion.
One friend of mine tells me that it wasn’t Saddam that did anything wrong in the last few years it was his sons, thus bush lied.
> Why is it that news organizations don't have someone with at least a semi-technical background vet articles of this nature?
Same reason why Hollywood tends to either not have good technical/science advisors (or ignore them when they do have them): the writers don;t understand the science, don't know how to incorporate it, can't be bothered in any event, and facts tend to get in the way of the story.
Yes, that likely pretty well sums it up.
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.