It looks like I was right!

[Mark Heide]

Colin Powell's presentation at the UN significantly increased public opinion for war against Iraq. Every major American news media broadcast the statistics from the Washington Post poll. It was noted that his speech did not have any influence on changing opinions of other countries. The BBC World news interviewed a french official who stated his opinion is still the same. By the way, the BBC was the only major broadcast news outlet that actually interviewed a US senator that did not change his opinion based on Powell's presentation. He was firmly against war with Iraq unless the US gets multilateral approval from the UN. All the other major American news outlets--ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and FOX were biased as they mostly broadcast people that had changed their minds to favor the Bush strategy.

I have two reasons for bringing up this issue. The first reason proves how easy it is for the news media to show clips of Powell's case against Iraq and gain support. It shows how powerful the media is in changing opinion. The other reason is it makes me sick that many people will believe anything their government tells them. I'm not just harping on just the US, because all countries are guilty of slanting the news in their favor. But, the US has been terrible since the 9/11 incident. The US media no longer questions the motives. Rarely do I see a press conference at the Pentagon that allows the media to ask the questions against the current policies, its as if the news media is censoring itself, and that is why I consider their opinions biased. It appears more that our government comes out to the press room and makes their statement and you are suppose to believe it without question.

It took me a long time to read through all the posts and I thank everyone for their opinions. Someone had mentioned that there are other sources for news to be more informed, but I just wanted to state that most Americans get their news from broadcast news stations. This is limited to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and FOX. All of these stations appear to report the stories the same. I did not see any differing opinions.

Lastly, my opinion on Saddam. First I think he is an evil dictator. Secondly, I believe he does probably have the weapons he is accused of. Thirdly, I believe that we need multilateral support to start a war, and it should be used as a last resort. What makes me suspicious of the Bush administrations motives is how quickly he wants to go to war to remove Saddam. For this reason, many people and countries believe that the US wants to just control the oil. Powell produced photographs that show how Saddam is moving the alleged weapons of mass distruction. My question is why was this information not turned over to the weapons inspectors?

Anyway, before you make a hasty decision to support war with Iraq, think of the alternatives for solving the problem with Iraq. Futhermore, think of the consequences. In most wars the innocent usually pay with their lives.

All comments welcome.

Mark

[Jimbo]

WOW! Where to start? Guess I'll begin with your ending and work my way back if I can last that long.

Mark wrote "Thirdly, I believe that we need multilateral support to start a war, and it should be used as a last resort. What makes me suspicious of the Bush administrations motives is how quickly he wants to go to war to remove Saddam. Why do we need multilateral support? And since we already do have this why don't you just say you feel we need unanimous support? War as a last resort makes sense to me unless you mean untill Saddam dies of old age and sponsors some specific terrorist threats that are successful in the future? In my opinion after 10 years of waiting we are at the last resort so, BOMBS AWAY!
How quickly Bush wants to go to war with Iraq eh? If we do it in 6 months does this make it ok? How about 12 months? Still too soon? Ok after the next presidential election? Oh drats, looks like you will prefer to wait for Hillarys arrival on the scene in 2008. You act like this just started, my gosh this has gone on for over a decade (8 years with Clinton). Isn't enough ever enough Mark?

Next: "Powell produced photographs that show how Saddam is moving the alleged weapons of mass distruction. My question is why was this information not turned over to the weapons inspectors?" Were you not watching TV Mark? They were moving this stuff around in mobile trucks and clearing the sites prior to the inspections. Would you prefer we sent 8x10 glossys to Saddam via color fax directly?

Next: "It was noted that his speech did not have any influence on changing opinions of other countries." It was noted by whom? These same "biased" news agencies you condemn in the rest of your post? The reports I saw denoted no less than 15 additional nations who were "on the fence" agreed that Saddam was in violation of the latest UN resolution and more serious steps should be taken. Unlike the French who thinks this means tripling the number of duped inspectors these other countries understand what the "serious consequences" stated in the original resolution was intended to mean.

Next: "The BBC World news interviewed a french official who stated his opinion is still the same. Gee, this is so hard to imagine! The French still have their own economic interests in mind over the safety of the region and perhaps the rest of the world. This is not news Mark, this is the French status quo in action.

Lastly: "By the way, the BBC was the only major broadcast news outlet that actually interviewed a US senator that did not change his opinion based on Powell's presentation. He was firmly against war with Iraq unless the US gets multilateral approval from the UN. Gee let me guess this was newsworthy, a lone Democrat in disagreement with the majority position. Heck even your beloved Senator Feinstein agreed that the inspections are proving useless and it does not appear further inspections will serve any useful function. Coming from Ms. Liberal Panties herself this is a resounding endorsement of Colin Powells presentation and of the Presidents policy. I suppose you have watched each and every newscast in the world the last 48 hours and will testify this to be true?


There may be several more point to clarify from your post but I haven't the time nor the inclination to beat my head against the wall any longer.

[adios]

Just to add something to Jimbo's post, why does Saddam get to change the UN Resolutions to his liking? Doesn't this amount to appeasement?

[IrishHand]

Your post makes some excellent points - prime among them the fact that our media appears to have little or no interest in questioning our government policiies. The closest they get to questioning is periodically mentioning how low support is for war - especially considering the current administration has been promoting it for it for at least six months now.

In regards to Powell's speech - I had the misfortune of watching most of it. He proved absolutely nothing. Not a single thing he said or offered as "evidence" was either conclusive or in most cases even reliable. The bottom line is that if we could prove 1/2 the things that Powell said we'd have done so long before now.

We did, however, have a good laugh in the wardroom on the topic of Iraq refusing us permission to fly U-2s over their country. Since when did anyone ever get permission to spy on someone else? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of spying? I guess that means we had permission to "tape" those conversations involving the "Iraqi officers" and to take satellite photos of different parts of Iraq.

[brad]

http://www.channel4.com/news/home/z/stories/20030206/dossier.html

the whole thing was a total sham but americans are too stupid or brainwashed to realize it even when its an open secret.