Our "Liberal" Media

[chequita guevara]

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports today on the utter failure of the media to inform the American public.

A third of the American public believes U.S. forces have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a recent poll. Twenty-two percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons.

But such weapons have not been found in Iraq and were not used.

Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001. But most of the Sept. 11 terrorists were Saudis; none was an Iraqi.

...

Before the war, the U.S. media often reported as a fact the assertions by the Bush administration that Iraq possessed large stockpiles of illegal weapons.

During and after the war, reports of possible weapons discoveries were often trumpeted on front pages, while follow-up stories debunking the reports received less attention.

Lest anyone try and tell me about those two "mobile WMD" trucks:

An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist.

Hydrogen gas . . . biological weapons? FARTMAN!

From the (London) Observer.

Mmmhmmm, yes, our media is sooo liberal that they've really lit a fire under the Bush Administration. Yep, any day now he should be impeached because of the damning information they've gotten out to the American public.

[Sava]

It's sad. And thanks to Colin Powell's son, the FCC Chairman, it's going to get worse as media conglomerates get bigger.

I hope this is just all a bad dream.

[SlowwHand]

[Az]

own goal.

[General Ludd]

You know a cartoonist is good when they have to write the name of their subject across their pants.

[Sava]

good point Sloww... we impeached a president for lying about a BJ, what should we do with the one who lied about war?

[SlowwHand]

If you would pull your head out, just for a couple of minutes, you'd MAYBE recognize that it wasn't all about WMD.
Even if it was, your point hasn't been proven; but it wasn't.

But you keep that narrow focus.
That's what you're best at doing.

[Sava]

You hear that folks... "it wasn't all about WMD"

[SlowwHand]

Sava. You been in a coma?
I know you didn't think this was one issue only.
Surely not.

[Sava]

dp

[Sava]

I don't know SLowwy, I watch quite a bit of CNN, MSNBC, and yes, even Fox... and I recall, every other day before the war..

"He's a threat to America"
"He's got stockpiles of WMDs"
etcetera...

Remember Powell's presentation?

Sorry, attempts to backtrack lies will fail.

[Boris Godunov]

Up until the eve of the war, the Bush Administration focused almost solely on WMD and Saddam being a threat to the U.S. and his neighbors. Didn't you see his State of the Union, in which Bush used a false bit of information (Iraq attempting to acquire uranium) to scare people into supporting the war? How about Colin Powell's presentation to the UN?

There were no links to Al Queda established, so the terrorism line fell flat as well.

The "liberating Iraqis" line didn't emerge until we were just about ready to roll into the country. Don't let revisionism fool you.

Now, I agree that even the Administration didn't believe the war was about WMDs (hence their lies about them). It was about carrying out the Wolfowitz doctrine for American hegemony in the ME.

[Q Classic]

of course it wasn't. but the administration--and the conservative pundits--hammered home that iraq was "an imminent threat" before the war with wmds targeted and ready to use against us.

which, thus far, hasn't been panning out for them.

the conservative pundits and the executive branch have now been hammering home that it wasn't about wmds, but about liberating iraq from under the boot of a brutal dictator.

look. we americans aren't stupid. we know it was about more than just wmd and liberation, and not really much to do with oil. however, blatantly switching focus and the reasoning behind the war to support one's political goals is downright nasty, condescending, and disgusting, one which seems to show that they care little and hold no value to the public or its intelligence.

that's what's irritating me now.

[Boris Godunov]

I'm amazed out how many conservatives are so complacent about being played like fiddles. And after all the talk about Bush restoring integrity to the White House after Clinton's dishonesty! Clinton lied to us about a blowjob. Bush lied to us about a situation which led to a war in which thousands died, and U.S. soldiers are still being killed almost every day. On top of that, there's not an iota of evidence this war has made the U.S. or its people the slightest bit safer.

Meanwhile, one of Bush's former top aides has lambasted the anti-terrorism actions, saying we're as vulnerable now as before. So invading Iraq makes us safer, but we let homeland security fall by the wayside?

Bush & Co. are hoodwinking the American public with a slight-of-hand that is painfully obvious. Too bad so many are willing to be duped.

As Hitler said, "What luck for rulers that men do not think."

[MikeH]

So...

No WMD.
No links to Al Qaeda.
Everyone insisted it wasn't about oil...

Er... so what was the war about again?

Hurt pride? General wish to bomb someone (preferably in the middle east) so people would feel better about 9/11? Boost weapons industry? Excuse for the ridiculous military spending levels?