Major News Organizations In US Ignore The World

[Mark Heide]

Yup, I'm still ranting about the US news reporting on the tube. Today on the BBC World was a story about the report that Tony Blair presented to Parliment that was praised by Colin Powell. Anyway, it appears that the report is based on information from the Iraqi situation from 1991. Some of the key points in Blair's Dossier were actually written by a California college student in 1991. As usual, our own news media ignores the subject. So, is the news media in the US in bed with the Bush administration or not?

Here's a link to the article that was broadcast today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2735031.stm

After reading this, it really makes me wonder what the real situation is all about, since this blows away any credibility for Tony Blair.

All responses welcome.

Mark

[Jimbo]

Mark you seem to "welcome" responses to your misleading posts but never respond back to solid criticism. At least this time you provided a link which can be read to dispute your "color" (being very generous here) commentary. I fail to see that any of the material was innacurate simply either dated or without proper accreditation. Insomuch as you use the fact that this has not received the front page treatment by US news organizations please keep two things in mind. Britain is 7 hours ahead of us so their primetime disclosure is different than ours and British politics only ocassionally receives front page treatment in the USA.

I will give credit where due so I say that this is the least misleading of your recent posts. Keep up the good journalism, I see The National Enquirer in your future.

[HDPM]

I saw that on Drudge. Doesn't he count?:D

[brad]

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


also on cnn.

but we know saddam had bio/chem stuff prior to gulf war because US (bush, etc.) sold it to him. rumsfeld was point man in deal i think. heh

what a scam.

[brad]

http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,1429_W_774039,00.html

...

But most of the claims were taken from a paper written by a postgraduate student in California. Much of the data cited was also over ten years old.

On Friday, embarrassed officials admitted whole sections had been lifted word for word from the student's thesis.

[MMMMMM]

Does it really matter?

Mork from Ork could have written it. Saddam isn't disarming, never did, never had any intention of doing so, and has shown he cannot be trusted to maintain WMD responsibly--but he can be trusted to use them on his own people and on his neighbors.

Why does everyone put so much emphasis on all the relatively little aspects of this affair? It's time to get rid of the bastard--maybe Powell should put that in his next speech;-)

[brad]

lots of info was up to 12 years old

[MMMMMM]

Well a lot of the problem is over 12 years old too.

Just how dumb, and LAME, can the world be?

Who in the audience thinks OJ was guilty, but Saddam isn't?

[IrishHand]

They're both guilty, and the US has allowed both to lead free lives despite their murderous urges. What's your point?

[MMMMMM]

1. That the folks insisting on seeing a smoking gun are needlessly playing into Saddam's hands by causing unnecessary delay and confusion

2. That the folks thinking that inspections should be given more chance to work are unwittingly this too--12 years has got to have been more than enough time--Iraq obviously simply refuses to truly cooperate.

[Clarkmeister]

"Does it really matter? "

That we apparently have zero evidence? Uhhhhhhhh since thats our entire pretext for going to war, I would think so. When our biggest ally cites a 12 year old student paper as evidence and our Secretary of State praises the "exquisite" detail of said evidence, its time to worry.

[nicky g]

"Well a lot of the problem is over 12 years old too."

That's true. But doesn't it worry you that one of the main people involved in supporting Saddam back then is now one of the main protagonists in his forcible disarming? Someone who sold him components for manafacturing biological weapons? I agree tha tjust becasue the US was wrong to arm him does not mean it shouldn't disarm him, but when you have Donnie Rumsfeld on both sides of the issue, don't you begin to at least question the administraton's motives for going to war? Don't you see any connection between the Bush administration's proximity to the oil industry and the fact that it's now ging to war against the country with the world's second largest oil reserves, and that many of the administration's key players were key players back when US policy to Saddam was almost entirely supportive? This isn't an argument against going to war per se, though I think there are plety of others which I've made elsewhere, but rather a question of why you trust these people when their ulterior motives and inconsistencies are so completely blatant.