NationStates Jolt Archive

This program kind of boggles my mind. Here is the description:

President Bush's case for pre-emptive war against Iraq was based substantially on evidence that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction. But a presidential commission described the pre-war intelligence as "dead wrong." CNN Presents pieces together the chain of events that led to the faulty intelligence.
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/



And there is the quote by Colin Powell's aide (who served under Powell from 2002- 2005), "I look back on it, and I still say it was the lowest point in my life." http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

Yes, you read that right ..

CNN - (?!) - is quite (startlingly) condemning of Bush for "manipulating" intelligence data ... the program is quite (startlingly) vigorous in detailing all the deceit, players and secretive dealings.

In the end, though, is it condemning the intelligence community?
Is CNN still taking the 'safe/political' stance ... or ...

Has CNN really broken ranks with the cable cabal?

I, personaly don't think this story in any way exonerates CNN for allowing these 'dirty tricks' to go by without scrutiny in the first place -- hell, without any QUESTIONS even!!

Still, if CNN is the first rat to desert the ship, I say ... welcome, kiddos ... what took you so long?

---------

"Dead Wrong" played lastnight and will again next weekend - check your listings for times.

Steph,

We already know that the Intel was faulty. So what is your point?

CNN is nothing more than a poor shadow...of what it once was...

Steph,

We already know that the Intel was faulty. So what is your point?

The point is, will CNN finally break ranks with all the drone news outlets and finally tell some truth about how Bush and the defense department manipulated the intelligence? They seem to be heading that way. It has become quite clear that the so called overwhelming Intel came from really ONE, that's right, ONE source! (curveball) who the international community told the Americans that this person was a known liar. How Bush cherry picked to make the case for war and in some cases outright lied.

The question is, will they now go about doing their jobs as real journalist? And expose Bush as the person who lied, or are they going to cop-out and try to put all the blame on the Intel community? Which is pretty hard to fathom at this point given what we know now that their only real source of WMD was "curveball" The rest of the Intel community world wide actually had said "maybe" that they didn't know.

Lets see if CNN gets honest!

It will certainly be interesting to see if US media will do what European, and especially British, media have - investigate this matter and finally start asking questions.

That is, if they can tear themselves away from such "news" as that feeding tube vegetable and the missing airheaded tourist...

It will certainly be interesting to see if US media will do what European, and especially British, media have - investigate this matter and finally start asking questions..

Same here in Canada, our media has been doing some real investigative reporting on the story even since before the war and ever since. So, we here in Canada (those who pay attention) have known what CNN is finally just starting to say for a long time.

That is why it's so frustrating when bringing up the subject with some Americans, they don't know what we do.. because their media went AWOL and is just now finally starting to report what we've known since the beginning.

Lets hope it gets through to some Americans, with Bush's ratings on handling of the Iraq war @ 34% obviously the majority are starting to get it, thankfully. However there will always be those die hard Neo-Cons who will never accept the truth and find ways to excuse Bush for what he has done, or at the very least try and pass the buck to the Intel community.

But hey, it's a start.

The point is, will CNN finally break ranks with all the drone news outlets and finally tell some truth about how Bush and the defense department manipulated the intelligence? They seem to be heading that way. It has become quite clear that the so called overwhelming Intel came from really ONE, that's right, ONE source! (curveball) who the international community told the Americans that this person was a known liar. How Bush cherry picked to make the case for war and in some cases outright lied.

The question is, will they now go about doing their jobs as real journalist? And expose Bush as the person who lied, or are they going to cop-out and try to put all the blame on the Intel community? Which is pretty hard to fathom at this point given what we know now that their only real source of WMD was "curveball" The rest of the Intel community world wide actually had said "maybe" that they didn't know.

Lets see if CNN gets honest!

I dunno where u live.. but in America, CNN is seens as a fairly liberal source of news information, as you are TRYING to place a political agenda on this. Perhaps CNN is not going in the way you wish they would, because there is no evidence to suggest America actually MANIPULATED the intellegnece to being with.. you just bought these claims hook line and sinker.

Seeing how the UN security council signed resolution 1441 BASED on the intellegence community and not what BUSH was telling them (unless you think Chirac actually had that much respect for bush) then they are showing you where the blame belongs. Not what you wish the claim should be.

I dunno where u live.. but in America, CNN is seens as a fairly liberal source of news information, as you are TRYING to place a political agenda on this. Perhaps CNN is not going in the way you wish they would, because there is no evidence to suggest America actually MANIPULATED the intellegnece to being with.. you just bought these claims hook line and sinker.

Seeing how the UN security council signed resolution 1441 BASED on the intellegence community and not what BUSH was telling them (unless you think Chirac actually had that much respect for bush) then they are showing you where the blame belongs. Not what you wish the claim should be.
CNN isn't liberal. Not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.

CNN isn't liberal. Not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination.

I always laugh at Americans - because it's always Americans - who depict CNN as liberal.

If CNN is liberal, than hell, I'm Mary Poppins! :p

Seeing how the UN security council signed resolution 1441 BASED on the intellegence community and not what BUSH was telling them (unless you think Chirac actually had that much respect for bush) then they are showing you where the blame belongs. Not what you wish the claim should be.

Yes, on that "maybe, we don't know" However it wasn't Chirac who told the inspectors (who had not finished their job) to get out of Iraq because they were about to bomb the be-jesus out of the country, no that would of been Bush! Had Bush listened to the people (inspectors) on the ground and or allowed them to complete their work, the war could of been avoided, because then America would of known what the inspectors did, there were NO WMD! But that wasn't in Bush's agenda so he lied and people died!

Perhaps your idea of liberal and conservative is warped by the overly radical liberal movements in Europe itself... where economic stability is sacrified for socailist agendas. Ive seen both the BBC and CNN and they report material much in the same way. I fail to see the radical conservatism and bush loveing in their reporting.

Yes, on that "maybe, we don't know" However it wasn't Chirac who told the inspectors (who had not finished their job) to get out of Iraq because they were about to bomb the be-jesus out of the country, no that would of been Bush! Had Bush listened to the people (inspectors) on the ground and or allowed them to complete their work, the war could of been avoided, because then America would of known what the inspectors did, there were NO WMD! But that wasn't in Bush's agenda so he lied and people died!

No.. it was Bush who told the inspectors to leave after they essentail told the security council that Saddams government violated (yet again) resolution 1441 by not fully discosing and cooperating with the inspection team (as Hanz blix himself stated in his report) and the 90 day period ended. Dont forget it was France asking for a 6 month EXTENSION. By all measures the inspectors job WAS done... wheater they came to a solid conclusion or not!

And bush not allowing for this EXTENSION is not paramount to lying.. i dont know what you think lying is in fact... but as far as i know its when your knowingly mislead others. There is no evidence to suggest Bush at any time had clear knowldege that Iraq had no WMD. if there is.. please do tell. And im not talking about theories some anayslists may have had.. because for everyone one you can produce without concrete evidence so i can produce 2 that would have said otherwise

Perhaps your idea of liberal and conservative is warped by the overly radical liberal movements in Europe itself... where economic stability is sacrified for socailist agendas. Ive seen both the BBC and CNN and they report material much in the same way. I fail to see the radical conservatism and bush loveing in their reporting.

Sorry dude, I'm Canadian.. had you read the entire thread you would of known that. ;)

Perhaps your idea of liberal and conservative is warped by the overly radical liberal movements in Europe itself... where economic stability is sacrified for socailist agendas. Ive seen both the BBC and CNN and they report material much in the same way. I fail to see the radical conservatism and bush loveing in their reporting.
Actually, Europe is very stable. The posterboy of 'socialist' countries, Sweden, is one of the fastest growing countries in Europe, and nears that of the United States.

Perhaps your idea of liberal and conservative is warped ...

I love the irony so much that I want to have sex with it.

I dunno where u live.. but in America, CNN is seens as a fairly liberal source of news information...According to my international relations professor (I asked him because all I get here is the pretty British CNN International) what CNN would be on a political scale, he placed it "right from center". I'm gonna trust him a heck of a lot more than you, because he's been places with real liberal media.

snip

Either you're only watching Fox "news" or you've not been paying attention.

Perhaps your idea of liberal and conservative is warped by the overly radical liberal movements in Europe itself... where economic stability is sacrified for socailist agendas. Ive seen both the BBC and CNN and they report material much in the same way. I fail to see the radical conservatism and bush loveing in their reporting.I'm gonna call bananafish. That is one heck of a misguided statement to make. America needs some real liberals. Heck, the Republicans in America best compares to an extremist fringe party called the Christians faithful to the Bible in Germany. Europe isn't "overly radical liberal", the US is ultra conservative...

If CNN is liberal, than hell, I'm Mary Poppins! :p

May I please sell your umbrella on eBay?

CNN is quite liberal as far as American news stations are concerned. It may be slightly conservative when compared to news across the world, but it is liberal enough to be referred to as such here in the U.S. Trying to tell someone in America that CNN isn't liberal is just as stupid as telling them that gas isn't expensive. Just because gas is more expensive elsewhere doesn't mean that it isn't very expensive compared to what the norm is in America; likewise, just because stations are more liberal elsewhere doesn't mean that CNN isn't liberal compared to what the norm is in the U.S.

CNN is nothing more than a poor shadow...of what it once was...
What do you remember CNN as? Their one, and I mean SINGLE, claim to fame was being on the whole time during the first Iraq war. That was all they ever did. Now? A bunch of channels do that. CNN is still trying to evolve into something that's not boring when things aren't blowing up, and like most channels that means being stupider.

On the program specifically, I saw it. And anyone who saw it already knew what the administration had done. People don't want to believe it, so it will probably be condemmed to the dustbins of history for want of honest men in both the government and in journalism. In another twenty years, republicans will be misremembering what a great president Bush was, naming crap and aircraft carriers after him just like they do for Reagen now. Until their policies burn out the economy of this nation, and it must be rebuilt again, such as during the great depression.

May I please sell your umbrella on eBay?

CNN is quite liberal as far as American news stations are concerned. It may be slightly conservative when compared to news across the world, but it is liberal enough to be referred to as such here in the U.S. Trying to tell someone in America that CNN isn't liberal is just as stupid as telling them that gas isn't expensive. Just because gas is more expensive elsewhere doesn't mean that it isn't very expensive compared to what the norm is in America; likewise, just because stations are more liberal elsewhere doesn't mean that CNN isn't liberal compared to what the norm is in the U.S.
You'd, of course, have proof of this.

May I please sell your umbrella on eBay?

CNN is quite liberal as far as American news stations are concerned. It may be slightly conservative when compared to news across the world, but it is liberal enough to be referred to as such here in the U.S.
Being locked in a cell with two people with one of them punching you all day and the other only doing it once every other day doesn't make the second guy "nice" in the world, while he would be "nice" by your standards, because that's the only treatment you get.

You'd, of course, have proof of this.

... Gee, how about this thread? "Dead Wrong: Inside an Intelligence Meltdown." If that's not a loaded title with an obvious agenda, I don't know what is.

... Gee, how about this thread? "Dead Wrong: Inside an Intelligence Meltdown." If that's not a loaded title with an obvious agenda, I don't know what is.
You mean besides the fact that the intelligence was dead wrong?

Either you're only watching Fox "news" or you've not been paying attention.

ACtually i happen to be a CNN/BBC addict watching both daily... perhaps it is you who have allowed the idea of Fox to over generalize all media outlets in the United States. Unless of course you pit the BBC on the same radical conservative line as CNN O.o ... You people seak of things you do not know

Sounds like someone upstairs at CNN finally noticed the direction Bush's approval rating is going, put two-and-two together, and figured they should get their tongue out of his butt before he drags them down with. :D

... Gee, how about this thread? "Dead Wrong: Inside an Intelligence Meltdown." If that's not a loaded title with an obvious agenda, I don't know what is.You'd of course make a thread title an "Agenda"...

Being locked in a cell with two people with one of them punching you all day and the other only doing it once every other day doesn't make the second guy "nice" in the world, while he would be "nice" by your standards, because that's the only treatment you get.

Bad analogy, because they're both in your cell and there aren't enough parties. Here's a better one: you're in one cell, another guy is in the one next to you, and each of you is the bitch of your respective cellmate. Cellmate A packs you twice a day, and cellmate B packs your neighbor five times a day. That doesn't give you any less of a right to consider cellmate A mean by the standards of your cell.

The point is, will CNN finally break ranks with all the drone news outlets and finally tell some truth about how Bush and the defense department manipulated the intelligence?

The intel wasn't manipulated. Even Bush was very upset when the intel turned out to be faulty. Since then, Tenet resigned and the CIA got a massive overhaul. Not to mention, all the intel agencies are now under 1 roof because of the bad intelligence that Bush used to go into Iraq. Just because it was faulty Steph, doesn't mean it was manipulated. Bad intelligence happens all the time.

They seem to be heading that way. It has become quite clear that the so called overwhelming Intel came from really ONE, that's right, ONE source! (curveball) who the international community told the Americans that this person was a known liar. How Bush cherry picked to make the case for war and in some cases outright lied.

Yea that source being Israel who got it from Chalabi.

The question is, will they now go about doing their jobs as real journalist? And expose Bush as the person who lied, or are they going to cop-out and try to put all the blame on the Intel community?

Since Bush didn't lie and that the info he used was faulty, how can you expose someone for lying who used bad intelligence? Come on Steph, I though you smarter than this.

Which is pretty hard to fathom at this point given what we know now that their only real source of WMD was "curveball" The rest of the Intel community world wide actually had said "maybe" that they didn't know.

Lets see if CNN gets honest!

Lets see if they actually realize, OOPS it was bad intel and that Bush didn't lie after all. That is all it is Steph! Bad intelligence led us into this war.

Bad analogy, because they're both in your cell and there aren't enough parties. Here's a better one: you're in one cell, another guy is in the one next to you, and each of you is the bitch of your respective cellmate. Cellmate A packs you twice a day, and cellmate B packs your neighbor five times a day. That doesn't give you any less of a right to consider cellmate A mean by the standards of your cell.
Aha. Except that in that case, America would have the guy that's the exception to the rule, while all the other cell mates have the common one (except for Italy, Iran, and Saddam's Iraq, which would be the cell warden's bitch due to a complete lack of diversity)

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/22/joe.klein.tm/index.html

Obviously painting her as a radical right ?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/22/bush.vfw.ap/index.html

Obviously a one sided piece not taking into account the anti war protest right or repulblican opposition to the war right ?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/21/bush.iraq/index.html

Isnt the one sidedness in reporting bleeding through yet ????

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/index.html

I know i know... the conservative agenda is ripe in this report.. surely.

This is all just from today, a small snipit in time of what can only be described as UN BIAS... perhaps thats why it seems like CNN is the bastion of republican support.. in Europe your so flooded with anti-american staunchly left media reporting you are unable to recognize what unbias reporting is

You mean besides the fact that the intelligence was dead wrong?

First of all, it wasn't, as factories with the means to create chemical and biological WMD's were present, and second of all, it wouldn't matter, because "Dead Wrong" and "Intelligence Meltdown" are still loaded phrases meant to give a passive listener a certain impression of the situation. It's like if I were to refer to gay people as buttfuckers from here on out. It may be true, but it would still show that I have a bias against gay people by choosing that word.

You'd of course make a thread title an "Agenda"...

From what I understand, that is also the title of the show.

You mean besides the fact that the intelligence was dead wrong?

It was wrong however to say that Bush manipulated it is also wrong.

Yeah that biased thread title shouldn't actually allude to what the program was about. It should have been "Cupcakes and Peanut Butter: A Delicious Snack?"

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/22/joe.klein.tm/index.html

Obviously painting her as a radical right ?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/22/bush.vfw.ap/index.html

Obviously a one sided piece not taking into account the anti war protest right or repulblican opposition to the war right ?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/21/bush.iraq/index.html

Isnt the one sidedness in reporting bleeding through yet ????

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/index.html

I know i know... the conservative agenda is ripe in this report.. surely.

This is all just from today, a small snipit in time of what can only be described as UN BIAS... perhaps thats why it seems like CNN is the bastion of republican support.. in Europe your so flooded with anti-american staunchly left media reporting you are unable to recognize what unbias reporting is
Who claimed that CNN was right wing?

Aha. Except that in that case, America would have the guy that's the exception to the rule, while all the other cell mates have the common one (except for Italy, Iran, and Saddam's Iraq, which would be the cell warden's bitch due to a complete lack of diversity)

Even if America's cellmate was the exception to the rule, that doesn't make him "not mean" for packing him twice a day.

Lets see if they actually realize, OOPS it was bad intel and that Bush didn't lie after all. That is all it is Steph! Bad intelligence led us into this war.Yeah right. If he'd a had better intelligence Bush would never have attacked Iraq?

Invidentias- The USA doesn't even have a mainstream liberal party... one is right wing and the other is right of center. So, it's not me who doesn't know the difference between liberal and conservative! Nor (except Air-America) do you have a liberal major news outlet. Even at that, Air-America is not exactly "major"

It was wrong however to say that Bush manipulated it is also wrong.
I don't think the title says "Dead Wrong: How Bush Lied and Manipulated the People into Declaring War On Iraq, and Why He Should Be Impeached"

Who claimed that CNN was right wing?

This guy:

According to my international relations professor (I asked him because all I get here is the pretty British CNN International) what CNN would be on a political scale, he placed it "right from center". I'm gonna trust him a heck of a lot more than you, because he's been places with real liberal media.

Yeah right. If he'd a had better intelligence Bush would never have attacked Iraq?

Either that or we use passed UN Resolutions to oust him anyway since he was stonewalling the inspection process!

Putting that aside, yes. If we had evidence that he really didn't have WMD I don't think we would've done what we did. However, Saddam made believe he had them and stonewalled everything to provide further proof that he really was hiding something. If he didn't have WMD, why didn't he comply with UN Resolutions? I don't think we would've gone through the 12 yr tap dance routine if he had followed through. He didn't and so....we're back in Iraq.

Everyone knew there was a problem with Bush's intelligence before he was elected in the first place. :p

I don't think the title says "Dead Wrong: How Bush Lied and Manipulated the People into Declaring War On Iraq, and Why He Should Be Impeached"

But it should!

I don't think the title says "Dead Wrong: How Bush Lied and Manipulated the People into Declaring War On Iraq, and Why He Should Be Impeached"

If you bothered to read Stephistan's statements, she was the one saying that Bush manipulated the intelligence. He didn't. The CIA Screwed up as did the rest of the world and now we are in Iraq with faulty WMD intelligence, though the terror charge still sticks.

Even if America's cellmate was the exception to the rule, that doesn't make him "not mean" for packing him twice a day.
It would be a situation completely different from everyone else, though...
(you screwed up the "mean" arguement by only putting two people a cell)

This guy:
Do learn the difference between drinking the kool-aid and being right of center. RoC, as compared to the rest of the world, is basically the centerist democratic party line.

But it should!

And here is proof that I was right regarding Stephistan saying that the intel was manipulated. :rolleyes:

Either that or we use passed UN Resolutions to oust him anyway since he was stonewalling the inspection process!

Putting that aside, yes. If we had evidence that he really didn't have WMD I don't think we would've done what we did. However, Saddam made believe he had them and stonewalled everything to provide further proof that he really was hiding something. If he didn't have WMD, why didn't he comply with UN Resolutions? I don't think we would've gone through the 12 yr tap dance routine if he had followed through. He didn't and so....we're back in Iraq.I don't believe you. Plus the stonewalling is a lie...

Despite the Whitewash, We Now Know that the Bush Administration was Warned Before the War That Its Iraq Claims were Weak (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0804-11.htm)

I don't believe you. Plus the stonewalling is a lie...

Is it? No it isn't Laerod. Why was it then that he wanted to know where the inspectors were going when they were supposed to be surprise inspections going on? Why didn't inspectors get to go into buildings until they were given the all clear?

There are way to many suspicious things that Saddam did that led everyone to believe that he was hiding something.

If you bothered to read Stephistan's statements, she was the one saying that Bush manipulated the intelligence. He didn't. The CIA Screwed up as did the rest of the world and now we are in Iraq with faulty WMD intelligence, though the terror charge still sticks.

First of all, and I keep having to stress this, the rest of the world thought "maybe, but don't know" and they didn't invade a country on a hunch!

Second, you bet your ass Bush lied and manipulated Intel.Colin Powell and his aids have said as much. It was Bush, Chenney and the defense department.. and they ALL knew what was going on, they even knew their source had no credibility, but they ignored it because he was selling what they wanted to buy.

If you're truly this naive to believe they didn't know, then I just don't know what to say to you. It's pretty fucking naive to think they didn't know. Because if they really didn't as you suggest, than they are at least incompetent and shouldn't be in office anyway.

*snip*

Steph,

I do respect you. However, I'm tired of you spouting conspiracies that have no facts at all. We now know that the Intel used to invade Iraq was faulty. I'm not even disputing that. However, just because it proved to be faulty, doesn't mean it was manipulated. There is absolutely no proof that Bush manipulated the intelligence. No investigation turned up said evidence either. To continue to say that he did and you'll begin to lose more and more of my respect. That hasn't happen yet but this is rediculous.

I don't understand this argument. Bush said there were WMDs. Many, many people said that there were not, including people leading the inspections. To argue that Bush didn't know, is to say that Bush was completely blocked off from the people who had their doubts which were based in truth. You trust a man this cut off from what is true and false? Intelligence was there which said that even if Saddam did have WMD, he did the exact right thing in invading if we wanted our country to be attacked again. Is it so wrong to say that Bush listened to the wrong people. That the intelligence handed his way was manipulated by his cabinet to look like a larger threat than it was? The WMD was an excuse for war, not a reason.

From the link I just posted

They knew Saddam and bin Laden were not collaborating
In the summer of 2002, USA Today reported White House lawyers had concluded that establishing an Iraq-al Qaeda link would provide the legal cover at the United Nations for the administration to attack Iraq. Such a connection, no doubt, also would provide political capital at home. And so, by the fall of 2002, the Iraq-al Qaeda drumbeat began.

It started on September 25, 2002, when Bush said, “you can’t distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam.” This was news even to members of Bush’s own political party who had access to classified intelligence. Just a month before, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, “Saddam is not in league with al Qaeda I have not seen any intelligence that would lead me to connect Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda.

To no surprise, the day after Bush’s statement, USA Today reported several intelligence experts “expressed skepticism” about the claim, with a Pentagon official calling the president’s assertion an “exaggeration.” No matter, Bush ignored these concerns and that day described Saddam Hussein as “a man who loves to link up with al Qaeda.” Meanwhile, Rumsfeld held a press conference trumpeting “bulletproof” evidence of a connection—a sentiment echoed by Rice and White House spokesman Ari Fleischer. And while the New York Times noted, “the officials offered no details to back up the assertions,” Rumsfeld nonetheless insisted his claims were “accurate and not debatable.”

snip

You're naive Corneliu, because you're not stupid, so it's the only conclusion I can come to. That or the lie told often enough becomes the truth thing has grabbed a hold of you and simply won't let go.

It's too bad, because you're a smart kid on the most part.

Is it? No it isn't Laerod. Why was it then that he wanted to know where the inspectors were going when they were supposed to be surprise inspections going on? Why didn't inspectors get to go into buildings until they were given the all clear?
Read these please.
Iraq vows to help UN weapons inspectors (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/20/iraq.tracker.update/index.html)
To which the White House responds:
White house rejects lengthy inspection process (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/24/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html)

Or this timeline:
Weapons inspectors return
2002 September - US President George W Bush tells sceptical world leaders at a UN General Assembly session to confront the "grave and gathering danger" of Iraq - or stand aside as the US acts. In the same month British Prime Minister Tony Blair publishes a dossier on Iraq's military capability.
2002 November - UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq backed by a UN resolution which threatens serious consequences if Iraq is in "material breach" of its terms.
2003 March - Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix reports that Iraq has accelerated its cooperation but says inspectors need more time to verify Iraq's compliance.
Saddam ousted
2003 17 March - UK's ambassador to the UN says the diplomatic process on Iraq has ended; arms inspectors evacuate; US President George W Bush gives Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war.Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/737483.stm)
Sadly, you are a good example why the US needs a broader media landscape...

State Department Link (http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm )

We will always try to consult with our friends in the region so that they are not surprised and do everything we can to explain the purpose of our responses. We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

There are way to many suspicious things that Saddam did that led everyone to believe that he was hiding something.
You don't trust Saddam but you trust Bush... Because Saddam was doing suspicious things...

Despite the Whitewash, We Now Know that the Bush Administration was Warned Before the War That Its Iraq Claims were Weak (http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0804-11.htm)

Oh my yes.. with unfettered unbias sources of information like this, how could I ever have thought otherwise..

Here let me give you a simliar source of "truth"
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2290
dont ever come with that type of bias information.. because for every site you may produce.. so i may produce 2 more opposing it ... ahhh partisanship :D

For every anaylist who supported the position that Iraq was not a threat so there is an anaylist who belived it was... that is the TRUTH you say you have!

You don't trust Saddam but you trust Bush... Because Saddam was doing suspicious things...
Never trust a man with a mustache.

Never trust a man with a mustache.Can you source that :p :D :p :D

Oh my yes.. with unfettered unbias sources of information like this, how could I ever have thought otherwise..

Here let me give you a simliar source of "truth"
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2290
dont ever come with that type of bias information.. because for every site you may produce.. so i may produce 2 more opposing it ... ahhh partisanship :D

For every anaylist who supported the position that Iraq was not a threat so there is an anaylist who belived it was... that is the TRUTH you say you have!

Sure, you can use that argument if you like... but who was right? There were no WMD's, Iraq posed NO threat to America and had NO ties to OBL.. so you can call it bias, but some of us who are not as caught up in the whole right vs. left thing, can see for ourselves who was right. The truth is not an opinion.

You're naive Corneliu, because you're not stupid, so it's the only conclusion I can come to. That or the lie told often enough becomes the truth thing has grabbed a hold of you and simply won't let go.

The only person spouting a lie is you Stephistan.

It's too bad, because you're a smart kid on the most part.

Thanks for the compliment :)

It would be a situation completely different from everyone else, though...
(you screwed up the "mean" arguement by only putting two people a cell)

No, I didn't. In the analogy, the viewer is being "packed" by an American liberal news channel in cell A, and a similar viewer is being packed by a foreign (to the U.S.) liberal news channel that packs him harder, similarly to how foreign news is more liberal than American news.

You don't trust Saddam but you trust Bush... Because Saddam was doing suspicious things...

Since Saddam was holding the inspection process.... yes he was doing suspcious things. If he had nothing to hide then why on earth didn't he just fully comply in the first place?

Do learn the difference between drinking the kool-aid and being right of center. RoC, as compared to the rest of the world, is basically the centerist democratic party line.

*slaps forehead* So, let me get this straight: when calling CNN liberal, it must automatically mean liberal in comparison to the rest of the world, and is thus incorrect; but when calling CNN right of center, it only means right of center in comparison to American channels, and actually means center according to the rest of the world. Did I get that right?

*slaps forehead* So, let me get this straight: when calling CNN liberal, it must automatically mean liberal in comparison to the rest of the world, and is thus incorrect; but when calling CNN right of center, it only means right of center in comparison to American channels, and actually means center according to the rest of the world. Did I get that right?
No, CNN is right of center compared to the world as a whole.

Oh my yes.. with unfettered unbias sources of information like this, how could I ever have thought otherwise..

Here let me give you a simliar source of "truth"
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=2290
dont ever come with that type of bias information.. because for every site you may produce.. so i may produce 2 more opposing it ... ahhh partisanship :D

For every anaylist who supported the position that Iraq was not a threat so there is an anaylist who belived it was... that is the TRUTH you say you have!

okay so you don't like that one... And did you completely miss the Colin Powell quote? Do you trust reports that come directly from the house or representatives (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf)?

Got this from http://zombiedeathkoala.blogspot.com:

The next time a Bush supporter yells at you for calling Dubya a liar, give them the link for the report from the Committee on Government Reform Minority Office--that's Henry Waxman's (D-CA) group.

The Committee has documented 273 statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, or Rice that were misleading at the time they were said. And just in case anybody was thinking about quibbling over the nature of "misleading," here's a taste of the Committee's work:

"The statements in the database are drawn from 125 public statements or appearances in which the five officials discussed the threat posed by Iraq. The sources of the statements are 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53 interviews, 4 written statements or articles, and 2 appearances before congressional committees.

"Quotes from the officials in newspaper articles or other similar secondary sources were not included in the database because of the difficulty of discerning the context of such quotes and ensuring their accuracy. Statements made by the officials before March 2002, one year before the commencement of hostilities in Iraq, were also not included. The database contains statements about Iraq from the five officials that were misleading based on what was known to the Administration at the time the statements were made.

"In compiling the database, the Special Investigations Division did not assess whether “subjectively” the officials believed a specific statement to be misleading. Instead, the investigators used an “objective” standard. For purposes of the database, a statement is considered “misleading” if it conflicted with what intelligence officials knew at the time or involved the selective use of intelligence or the failure to include essential qualifiers or caveats.

"The database does not include statements that appear mistaken only in hindsight. If a statement was an accurate reflection of U.S. intelligence at the time it was made, the statement is excluded from the database even if it now appears erroneous."


You were deliberately misled. Dispute this document all you like but it did not come from any liberal news source.

No, I didn't. In the analogy, the viewer is being "packed" by an American liberal news channel in cell A, and a similar viewer is being packed by a foreign (to the U.S.) liberal news channel that packs him harder, similarly to how foreign news is more liberal than American news.
Please don't pretend to be stupid.
By your logic, that CNN is "liberal", the more liberal of Isvestia and Pravda would have been the "liberal" newspaper of the Soviet Union.
They weren't. Global standards apply. End of story.

Since Saddam was holding the inspection process.... yes he was doing suspcious things. If he had nothing to hide then why on earth didn't he just fully comply in the first place?If American's have nothing to hide, why don't they comply with the International Criminal Court?

*slaps forehead* So, let me get this straight: when calling CNN liberal, it must automatically mean liberal in comparison to the rest of the world, and is thus incorrect; but when calling CNN right of center, it only means right of center in comparison to American channels, and actually means center according to the rest of the world. Did I get that right?You could of course, call the "Stürmer" liberal by Nazi standards, since it represented the opinion of the poor worker thug instead of the compassionless SS-man. It isn't, but you could call it that if all you go by is the country of origin. A global comparison is a bit more objective, since Der Stürmer is (no wait, was) an extreme rightwing Newspaper that was nowhere near liberal or leftist.

If American's have nothing to hide, why don't they comply with the International Criminal Court?

Because we already have a Supreme Court. The ICC violates our soveriegnty and we don't need another court to tell us how to run our criminal justice system.

Read these please.
Iraq vows to help UN weapons inspectors (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/20/iraq.tracker.update/index.html)
To which the White House responds:
White house rejects lengthy inspection process (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/24/sprj.irq.wrap/index.html)

Or this timeline:
Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/737483.stm)
Sadly, you are a good example why the US needs a broader media landscape...

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/
Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed the inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to a lack of evidence and inconsistencies which raise question marks which must be straightened out if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq, rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM.


Shows that even at the end of the process Inspectors had no clear answer as to whether or not Iraqi had these weapons, and identified resistance to the inspection process.
There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist.

This serves to show even the Inspection team themselves belived Iraq may well have been in possession of WMD (even though liberals insist there was no evidence what soever)

I turn now, Mr. President, to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access.

While this shows Iraq was cooperating in some aspects of the inspection process... Blix would go on to note many instances in which the Iraqi government were being misleading or failing to disclose full information which was required by resolution 1441.

Because we already have a Supreme Court. The ICC violates our soveriegnty and we don't need another court to tell us how to run our criminal justice system.I'll let you reread the bold part and ask you, why the Serbs didn't let the Austrians to the investigations concerning the Serb terrorists that killed the Archduke and his wife? See what I'm getting at?

I'll let you reread the bold part and ask you, why the Serbs didn't let the Austrians to the investigations concerning the Serb terrorists that killed the Archduke and his wife? See what I'm getting at?

And thus we had World War I! Go figure. Though that war would've happened with or without the assassination.

No, CNN is right of center compared to the world as a whole.

The orginal post was to imply CNN ran pro bush reporting neglecting the facts inf avor of the administration through a political agenda.. Ill accept CNN is RoC. Just as the BBC is LoC. But because the BBC is LoC does not stand to mean the BBC is staunchly against the Bush administration or that they run an agenda etc.. etc.. Most belive they report in an unbias way giving all the facts as they see them. Such is the case with CNN.

There is no agenda in the reports CNN dispurses or does not dispurse, and hold no strong political affiliation.

Shows that even at the end of the process Inspectors had no clear answer as to whether or not Iraqi had these weapons, and identified resistance to the inspection process.Yup. There was something called the Iraq war that got them to pull out before they could finish the job.
This serves to show even the Inspection team themselves belived Iraq may well have been in possession of WMD (even though liberals insist there was no evidence what soever)Saddam even hinted that he had some. The question was, how many, where, were they producing more. These questions could have been answered with an inspection, they didn't need a war.
While this shows Iraq was cooperating in some aspects of the inspection process... Blix would go on to note many instances in which the Iraqi government were being misleading or failing to disclose full information which was required by resolution 1441.Really? It refutes the point that he was "stonewalling" though. His stance had changed from "No you damn Yanks" to "Right, here you are" and every time the pressure got harder, there was more cooperation. Keyword: CO-O-PER-A-TION. The reason the inspectors didn't manage to bring him to heel was because Bush saw that Saddam was bending and wanted to be able to get him on the resolution as long as he wasn't fully cooperating, which would likely have happened.

If American's have nothing to hide, why don't they comply with the International Criminal Court?
This reminds me when the Americans did not comply with NAFTA after losing so many battles with Canada involving the softwood lumber dispute. :rolleyes:

And thus we had World War I! Go figure. Though that war would've happened with or without the assassination.I didn't ask what happened did I? ;)
I asked why they denied it. And yeah, that war would have happened anyway. It was only a matter of time and opportunity.

Yup. There was something called the Iraq war that got them to pull out before they could finish the job.

In fact by the guidlines of 1441 they had finish their job given their time frame. Had Iraq fully cooperated as 1441 so stipulated, extra time would not have been required. Blix himself stated several occasions where Iraq were being deceptive undoubtly hindering their efforts. They were stalling so they could put off the invasion essentailly playing politics on such a critical issue. The resolution stipulated this would not be tolerated.. and hence it was not. War was nessesary.

Saddam even hinted that he had some. The question was, how many, where, were they producing more. These questions could have been answered with an inspection, they didn't need a war.

Yes inspections could have answered these questions had Iraq cooperated.. but weren't on the level they where charged to. They were warned the consequences of those actions and essentailly suffered them. For 12 years Iraq spat in the face of the UN playing the field.. had we not invaded the integrety of the UN would only have further suffered.

Really? It refutes the point that he was "stonewalling" though. His stance had changed from "No you damn Yanks" to "Right, here you are" and every time the pressure got harder, there was more cooperation. Keyword: CO-O-PER-A-TION. The reason the inspectors didn't manage to bring him to heel was because Bush saw that Saddam was bending and wanted to be able to get him on the resolution as long as he wasn't fully cooperating, which would likely have happened.

Wrong.. it only refutes the point that he was stonewalling on the issue of access. When it comes to the issue of substance, there are many situations in which Iraq activly worked against inspectors efforts, thus they were stonewalling. They failed to disclose for the discrepency of weapons and agents from the past inspections to that date and even put off the release of their documents to the last minute continuing their history of resistance. They were not CO-O-PER-A-Ting to the degree that the situation so demanded, or that the UN so called for.. and thus they suffered the consequences the UN itself claimed it would pass down (reguardless of side agendas on the part of France, Russia, and China)

I didn't ask what happened did I? ;)
I asked why they denied it.

Soveriegnty issue. However, because they didn't let them in, Austria-Hungary declared war on them, Russia in turned declared war on Austria. Germany declared war on Russia....and on down the chain of full declarations of war.

And yeah, that war would have happened anyway. It was only a matter of time and opportunity.

At least we can agree here.

Soveriegnty issue. However, because they didn't let them in, Austria-Hungary declared war on them, Russia in turned declared war on Austria. Germany declared war on Russia....and on down the chain of full declarations of war.

At least we can agree here.I don't disagree with the first thing either. It was a sovereignity and pride issue. That's the same reason why Saddam was unwilling to cooperate at first and dragged his heels when he did. It sucks to have to retreat from the international community with your tail between your legs, but being forced to stay and watch with your tail between your legs is worse...
N'way, I'm trying to get my sleep schedule back on track (I've been posting until about 4:00 in the morning CET the past few days and I need to stop myself from doing it again ;) )

In fact by the guidlines of 1441 they had finish their job given their time frame. Had Iraq fully cooperated as 1441 so stipulated, extra time would not have been required. Blix himself stated several occasions where Iraq were being deceptive undoubtly hindering their efforts. They were stalling so they could put off the invasion essentailly playing politics on such a critical issue. The resolution stipulated this would not be tolerated.. and hence it was not. War was nessesary.



Yes inspections could have answered these questions had Iraq cooperated.. but weren't on the level they where charged to. They were warned the consequences of those actions and essentailly suffered them. For 12 years Iraq spat in the face of the UN playing the field.. had we not invaded the integrety of the UN would only have further suffered.



Wrong.. it only refutes the point that he was stonewalling on the issue of access. When it comes to the issue of substance, there are many situations in which Iraq activly worked against inspectors efforts, thus they were stonewalling. They failed to disclose for the discrepency of weapons and agents from the past inspections to that date and even put off the release of their documents to the last minute continuing their history of resistance. They were not CO-O-PER-A-Ting to the degree that the situation so demanded, or that the UN so called for.. and thus they suffered the consequences the UN itself claimed it would pass down (reguardless of side agendas on the part of France, Russia, and China)

"That is an indication that the inspectors are using their new authority effectively. They have the right to inspect and go anywhere and they have demonstrated that they are determined to use this new authority."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,72011,00.html

"All possible options for resolving the Iraqi crisis by peaceful means must be thoroughly explored, he said. Whatever decisions needed to be made must be taken by the Council alone. It remained the only body internationally authorized to do so. Military action against Iraq would, in addition to the terrible humanitarian consequences, endanger the stability of a tense and troubled region. The consequences for the Near and Middle East could be catastrophic. There should be no automatism leading to the use of military force. Diplomacy had not yet reached the end of the road."
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.doc.htm

"Iraq’s representative assured the Council that his country was now providing proactive cooperation with the inspections. He believed the Council should follow the vast majority of United Nations Members by giving the inspectors all that they needed to undertake their tasks, which would lead to peace and not war."
http://www.unis.unvienna.org/unis/pressrels/2003/sc7664.html

"U-2 surveillance flights over Iraq were continuing, and interviews with Iraqi scientists by UN experts were continuing," he said, adding 46 banned al-Samoud 2 missiles have thus far been destroyed."
http://www.china.org.cn/english/international/57856.htm

"UNITED NATIONS - U.N. arms inspectors on Tuesday complained that a lack of cooperation by the United States had stymied their efforts to completely account for Iraqi weapons."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5807.htm

Yeah. No cooperation.

Relevant to the topic at hand...

Since noone commented on it before: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

^ Report from House of Reps committee that documents a couple hundred public statements made by the Bush Administration that were deliberately misleading to the public. We were all lied to (I never believed the hype though). Now let's get Bush into a court of law where we can punish him for it.

I just got a call from some unknown guy that told me I had better watch what I say on public forums (and often in private as well due to the patriot act). I retract all proof of the Bush administration lies and tell you that it is all an elaborate hoax by the vast left wing conspiracy group in Howard Deans basement. I'm going to Europe on my honeymoon next year and I don't want to end up on the no-fly list as a flight-risk like so many other peace activists.

<.< >.>

Please don't pretend to be stupid.
By your logic, that CNN is "liberal", the more liberal of Isvestia and Pravda would have been the "liberal" newspaper of the Soviet Union.
They weren't. Global standards apply. End of story.

Would that not be a correct statement, or did I miss something?

... Gee, how about this thread? looking at this thread ..this is what I can tell you...

There is a Group of Neocon Players calling CNN "Liberal"...and I see World players laughing their asses at the Neocons...

Also I can see that most Neocons have access only to US TV stations...and that most World players have access to BOTH...US and World TV stations.

looking at this thread ..this is what I can tell you...

There is a Group of Neocon Players calling CNN "Liberal"...and I see World players laughing their asses at the Neocons...

Also I can see that most Neocons have access only to US TV stations...and that most World players have access to BOTH...US and World TV stations.
I'm beginning to think that the definition of Neocon is uninformed.

CNN reiterates a good point, that something is terribly wrong with our intelligence networks. The CIA is essentially a Cold War institution in a post war world. It has no human intelligence left, though that is changing. We need careful introspection of this venerable agency, and help reform it. The NID office is not enough.

CNN reiterates a good point, that something is terribly wrong with our intelligence networks. The CIA is essentially a Cold War institution in a post war world. It has no human intelligence left, though that is changing. We need careful introspection of this venerable agency, and help reform it. The NID office is not enough.

I agree with you 100%. It won't be fixed overnight but what we have now is a start. Now let us build on this and get back to using actual humans instead of machines.

I agree with you 100%. It won't be fixed overnight but what we have now is a start. Now let us build on this and get back to using actual humans instead of machines.
We're sorry, but the CIA comment box is temporarily out of order. If you wish to buy a comment card, press one. If you wish to record your complaint on an extremely vast database no one has time to read, press two. If you are tired of the CIA and would like to screw this and forgetaboutit, press three. :p

Relevant to the topic at hand...

Since noone commented on it before: http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

^ Report from House of Reps committee that documents a couple hundred public statements made by the Bush Administration that were deliberately misleading to the public. We were all lied to (I never believed the hype though). Now let's get Bush into a court of law where we can punish him for it.


anybody? neocons? bueller? bueller?