Time for the attacks on the validity of media reports

Let’s tell the masses why they should not believe the newly uncovered evidence that Iraq obviously had wmd's. And let’s be quick to do it before the evidence is released.

It's like a predictable Jerry Springer episode where the contestant hears about another person who they know has evidence to testify to the audience as to how full of shit they are. You know that this is true when they start with how the audience should believe nothing they say.

But it is awful hard to argue against taped recordings in Saddams presidential palace. That was recently translated. Guess that blockbuster news report would be better swept under the rug rather than try to attack the messenger. Let's just sit back and see how this plays out.

 

I haven't heard the reports, but you can be sure FOX News won't be sweeping it under any rug.

How old are the recordings? Why did they take so long to surface?

These are the kinds of questions any sensible person, and any decent journalist, should ask.

However, as FOX employs no decent journalists, I expect they'll run whatever the Whitehouse gives 'em.

 

The evidence is out there and it is compelling. I encourage you if you feel that way then to not watch Fox news or consider what they report on it. Rather watch whatever other news outlet you like and gauge there sincerity in getting you fair and accurate news by what they tell you about it this week and what then gets dragged out or doesn’t get dragged out about it in the next few months. If you open your mind it can be a very telling thing.

If they either don't report it or sort of report it as a back page non-important issue. Then you should reconsider your faith in your favorite news outlet.

 

What's sauce for the goose ...

 

Or the reports that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction are being exagerated.

 

The information is out there to find.

Or of course you can waite for Nursey to tell you why you should not believe the information. Complete with links and miles of copied text.

 

you act like I go to Nursey for my source material. Because I trust fugly as my news source. :roll:

 

Hell no. Actually I think the only two people that really take her seriously are Pimp and Smiley. Xerx actually seems to read them and then go on to refute most points. Thing is Xerx is a mature grown up capable of reading the propaganda and forming his own opinion. I just cannot see where he finds the time or patience.

 

I keep walking into discussions where Joe is talking about me. My posts must be getting to him if he is so agitated and defensive. Nothing like the security that comes from knowing in your heart of hearts you are right, eh? :wink:

 

Well they did not really have weapons of MASS destruction. If someone founf a few drops of biosneeze. It would still be far less than what small european countries have in their labs.

The problem was the geo-political threat of Iran and Iraq joining forces. To have some clout they need the nuclear-umbrella. Heck ! Most Us pharmaceutical companies have more weapons of mass-destruction than Iraq !

 

If they had them, why didn't they use them? Were they saving them for a rainy day when the world's most powerful military weren't attacking them?

 

Shit use his weapons on us in a face to face battle hell no he knew the war we were about to stomp him on we were sitting back like little children on the beach in a lounge chair playing army with toy soldiers using their toes.

Using a wmd on us would evoke the wrath on him like he never imagined. Better to sneak them out through Lebanon and Syria and deep six tons of it into the ocean.

And Xerx were not talking about a small amount here.

 

Well isn't that why he would never be stupid enough to do it in the first place?

 

He is crazy like a fox as well as crazy like a smurf all at the same time.

He believed he could hide the weapons, make GW a fool. Then resume where he left off at a later point. Remember the very real Iran threat and desire to take out Israel as incentive. It has been proven that once a rouge dictator attains a certain respect for power he is then left alone. Look at North Korea if you would like an example.

A smart man who gave himself too much credit and his terrorized advisers knew better than to disagree with him. The man killed his own son-n-law for disagreeing with him.

 

But North Korea won their war. Iraq hasn't ... yet.

 

:| Erm...Joe...

 

One question Joe, if the evidence is there that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, why has the U.S. called off the search for them? Wouldn't it be in our best interest, as a nation, to continue the search for weapons that could kill millions?

 

That is also about priorities in the field and how to protect highly specialized troops with grunt-power in a hostile environment. Better train more iraquis and chase those ragheads around without the glasseads as a liability.

But the focus could have been here:

 

So the news media is not biased?
Going on 20 days now and hardly a peep.


http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/945usqnx.asp

Strategy still the same misinform the general public doing so speaking in one collective voice. After the truth inevitably does get, out simply blackball it. If there is no other choice, acknowledge it as a non issue really hopefully sustaining the damage done on the conservative administration what ever administration that may be.

Seems their following the standard operating procedure.

 

Yes Joe, misinformation. But they don't use it to just give the right-wingers a black eye, it's just that all these problems that inevitably had to show up are finally doing so, and they want to channel the anger of the public onto those who are in office right now. When everything finally goes to shit, it'll be them who we blame it all on, because the media told us so. Not the people who are really forcing these decisions on them.