It is interesting that those who admire the use of our military might to invade Iraq appear to see the issue as black and white, a stance that likens the rush to war as protecting America while at the same time grasping for confirmation that such a true threat existed, and then at the same time portraying those who advised caution and deliberation as being the ones in error.
The issue of a collaboration between Iraq and Al Queda is central to the veracity of a true threat. Conversations, meetings that led to nothing, those are not collaboration nor do they provide justification for an invasion.
Did Bush "lie" as you put it? Is he "evil"? I certainly didn't see any of those in the above article, I didn't place those demonic labels on GWBush. IMHO GWBush came into office with an Iraq fixation, fell victim to a belief that his staff assisted in furthering, that belief being that Iraq justified a war at that time with or without a unified allied commitment to the conflict. Let's just put it this way, GWBush is none of those but at the same time he is in guilty of poor decisionmaking, of relying on the wrong adivisors and ignoring those whom he should have listened to who advocated further non-agressive means.
Quote:
|
But back to the point of this thread, do you think that a newspaper that has access to information that is relevant to a current blaring headline and editorial isn't just a little bit disingenious by hiding it until after said headline and editorial is written.
|
Yes, if a newpaper has information relative to a story it does a disservice if it suppresses that news for its own self interest. Look at the above article and tell me how it conflicts with their editorial. I don't agree with the conclusion of the author who says:
"Because it is the continuation of a pattern — another instance of an effective but misleading tactic repeatedly used by the Times, the intelligence community, the 9/11 Commission staff, and all the Iraq/Qaeda connection naysayers. To wit: When they can't explain something, they never say they can't explain it; they say it didn't happen — even if saying so is against the weight of considerable counterevidence"
for I see it from the opposite direction, and suggest it reads more accurately adjusted as follows:
Because it is the continuation of a pattern — another instance of an effective but misleading tactic repeatedly used by the Bush Administration, the supporters of the War, and all the Iraq/Qaeda connection conspiracy believers. To wit: When they can't explain something, they never say they can't explain it; they say it must have happened — even if saying so is against the weight of considerable counterevidence