Posted on 11/21/2010 7:29:49 AM PST by Scanian
Syndicated columnist and PBS regular Mark Shields on Friday actually said on national television that he has never heard a Democratic leader or presidential candidate accuse former President George W. Bush of lying America into the Iraq War.
This was said in response to Charles Krauthammer telling his fellow "Inside Washington" panelists that this all too common media assertion is the "essential untruth of this decade" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
GORDON PETERSON, HOST: Whats happened to honest objective reporting?
EVAN THOMAS, NEWSWEEK: Well, Im not sure there ever was honest objective reporting, but there is an interesting thing going on. You would think with the internet and cable and all these new outlets, more information should mean more truth. The more information, the freer, the more open it is should mean more truth. But I worry that the opposite has happened. That, there, its now more possible for untruth to adhere, to take hold. In the example that people were talking about this week was this thing that got out from first the Indian press, then to Drudge, then to the right wing radio guys and then Congress that Obama was spending $200 million a day on his foreign trip which was just nonsense. It was finally knocked down. But, you start to wonder, you hear, people get their information by the internet, by e-mails from their Uncle Joe. You know, if thats where they are getting their information, is it possible that real untruth will take hold in a way that we didnt think was possible in our system?
NINA TOTENBERG, NPR: I think that this a, this is worrisome, and its left and right. Its the people who think the Bush administration somehow was responsible for 9/11, or that a trip that clearly costs in total something like five or six million at the most, and its really 200 million. Its not the same, I mean a day. Theyre, theyre not the same in importance obviously, but, but, this really, the fact that there is no -- there doesnt seem to be any factual agreement about anything allows us to sort of entertain the most odd and conspiratorial fantasies.
Changing the argument from WMD's to Hussein.
quotes from unnamed sources
Sources and links were provided smart guy.
Your answers are sad and pathetic. Your argumentum ad hominem doesn't help.
Organizations were named with nothing definitive in what they had to say and being CERTAIN is what your argument is all about. That’s why it falls apart.
I can't help you here. You're on your own if you just reject these sources out of hand. WMD's existence WERE questioned before Bush's Iraq invasion. There is no serious argument otherwise and your attempts to do so are superfluous.
The real issue is what were Bush's motivations. That's where the debate is.
I think we're done.
Sorry, I had turned on my “bullshit filter” and not been able to decipher your most recent post.
Have a good day Mr “Seldom right, always sure”
BTW, you also need to reread my comments. Being CERTAIN was not my point. I tried earlier to tell you the issue was one of opinion supported by evidence. Looks like you didn’t get it.
This is close to the issue I was addressing. I think Bush had his own reasons (good, bad, or indifferent - I think convoluted) for wanting to invade Iraq and the WMD thing had enough validity to provide him the opportunity. I didn't believe at the time, nor do I believe now, that the WMD's were why he wanted to invade Iraq. Subsequent events and statements by Bush himself did not surprise me and seemed to line up with what I thought.
The nuances and demands of good intelligence capabilities is another subject, though germane. IMO, 9/11 was able to be carried out because of Clinton's dismantling of our sharp intelligence capabilities established under Reagan.
Boy did you ever call that one correctly!
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.