CNN, Al-Jazeera, VietNam, Desert Storm, and Clean War...

Then stop stating this as fact. I don't have a problem if you say "I believe this to be false" - you are free to theorize or believe whatever you want. But when you state it as fact - "This is false" - then you are attempting to mislead the reader.

Then what other aspects of the war do you believe that Americans are not getting? Other than civilian casualties? What are we missing?

The Israelis allowing 9/11 to happen is a preposterous conspiracy theory invented by anti-Semitic forces in Europe and the Middle East, with no supporting evidence. Everyone knows this. The possibility that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 is supported by defectors' testimony, the fact that Salman Pak houses a 707 fuselage designed to train hijackers to take over planes in groups of 4-6 men with unarmed combat, and other evidence linking Iraq and Al Qaeda that you refuse to believe.

They are not equivalent theories. One has evidence to support it and the other doesn't. One is reasonable and consistent, and the other is not.

 

rimbaud:

The administration has been careful to not make a direct link between Saddam and 9/11 simply because they knew that they did not have any rock hard, 100% irrefutable evidence that this was true.

Not surprisingly, and something that glynch and MacBeth fail to take into account, such evidence is pretty much impossible to get while Saddam's regime is in power in Iraq. It will not be verifiable until we take control there.

I personally expect that if we are able to gain access to at least some of Saddam's archives (the Iraqis are meticulous recorders), then a whole new level of horror will be realized. Their hands are dirty - we know this. How dirty will not be known until we are in control.

I do personally believe that it is *likely* that Saddam had a hand in 9/11, although I would not bet my life on it. We will find out one way or another when the dust settles.

 

And what is your reasoning, MacBeth?

1) There is no 100% irrefutable evidence that Saddam was not involved in 9/11.

2) Therefore Saddam was not involved in 9/11.

3) Therefore Saddam is not a significant threat.

4) Therefore an invasion of Iraq is not warranted.

You would wait until such evidence was rock-solid, even though it could not possibly be rock-solid because we do not have access to the information that would make it rock-solid? Your reasoning is a recipe for inaction in virtually every single security matter we could encounter.

Breaking News: seldom is evidence for a crime rock-solid until after the cops have conducted a search in order to gain more evidence. We are going to conduct a search when the dust settles.

BTW, you got my reasoning wrong:

Because they have been in violation of UN sanctions and the 1991 cease fire agreement for over 12 years. Because they are stockpiling WMD in violation of said agreements. Because they have indisputable ties to terrorist organizations that are hostile to the US and its interests, and I'm not just talking Al Qaeda here. Because Saddam has repeatedly claimed his intent to hit the US in whatever way he can. And because tangential evidence exists that there was a 9/11 link.

Simplifying my reasoning may serve your purposes of distorting the situation, but it changes nothing.

We have already discussed this ad naseum. You, glynch, and No Worries are all so convinced that the Bush admin is lying, you refuse to believe any evidence presented that indicates that Saddam is anything other than a Boy Scout in disguise. If you refuse to believe the evidence, then I would say that is a problem with your ability to trust non-Democrat/liberal authority figures, not an inadequacy in my reasoning. The evidence is there and has been presented over and over again; your refusal to believe it does not invalidate it in reality, only in your own mind.

 

MacBeth:

Do I need to remind you that this is not a court of law? That we are not held to the standards of "innocent until proven guilty" when deciding matters of national security? I don't care if you don't like that fact, but that's how it is.

BTW, you did not refute the Saddam-9/11 link. All you have really done is point out that insufficient evidence exists to make an irrefutable connection - a point that I have stated previously several times that I agree with. But refute it you have not.

Please, you know damn well that is not what I'm doing. You're just eager for an opportunity to call me childish...

I will say this, though: if the antiwar camp's intent is not to aid Saddam, then its actions are not in line with its intent, because so far they have aided no one but Saddam Hussein.

Right back at you... And with just as much supporting evidence.

Are you denying that you take a liberal tack on security matters such as this? It sure seems like you do...

 

MacBeth, what show were you referring to in your first post?

I haven’t read the other thread y’all are referring too, so I’m a little behind on this discussion, but it seems to me that it’s pretty unlikely that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. He’s a secular opportunist, not a religious fanatic. Some of his closest advisers are not even Muslim (Tariq Aziz) and his main concern is his own power, status, and wealth. Al Queda are religious fanatics who are prepared to live in caves and die for their cause. I can’t imagine how they could even have any respect for a guy like Saddam, or he any interest in them. I’m sure there is a measure of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” involved, but I have a very hard time seeing them collaborating on something like 9/11.

 

That’s a TVO show right? Nope, we don't get it then. Thought it might be on Access but it doesn’t seem to be.

 

Nobody answered my question? Too stupid?

 

MacBeth:

Since when has anyone ever held an open court and brought evidence against another country for wrongdoings before going to war? Doesn't work that way, that is the reality, and you know it.

In Kosovo, BTW, the main body of evidence we had of atrocities being committed was from refugees fleeing the province. Not surprisingly, that same form of evidence constitutes a large body of the evidence used against Saddam's regime (except they are called "defectors", not refugees, although they are in fact refugees). We also have other humint and satintel to back that up... But of course, you do not believe any of this "evidence", so...

I sometimes wonder what trials would be like if the judges and jury simply said "I don't believe that evidence" and threw it out? Would anyone ever be convicted of anything?

Sure. The antiwar camp has 1) influenced perceptions globally against the US position, 2) emboldened France, Germany, etc by getting them to believe that they could stifle US aims, and has dealt a serious blow to both the UN and any potential anti-Saddam coalition, and 3) emboldened Saddam to think that he could defeat US aims without giving in to UN demands - without giving anything up, in short making war inevitable. Also, They have prolonged Saddam's life by about 6 months.

I fail to see how any of these helps anyone but Saddam. It certainly didn't help the US, the UN, NATO, or the EU. Or Turkey. Or Israel. Or China or Russia. Or Mozambique or Paraguay. The only regime on the planet that has benefioted from this has been Saddam's. (and Iran's, I guess, as the mullahs' rule was extended a bit by default).

 

This is not much on the grand scale of recent #1,000 posts, but I thought this was interesting and belonged in a media thread...
____________________

MARCH 27, 2003
15 Stories They've Already Bungled
Mitchell on the War Coverage So Far

By Greg Mitchell

NEW YORK -- Opinion

The war is only a week old and already the media has gotten at least 15 stories wrong or misreported a sliver of fact into a major event. Television news programs, of course, have been the prime culprits. Newspapers, while they have often gone along for the ride, have been much more nuanced and careful. Newspaper coverage has not been faultless, as photos and headlines often seem shock-and-awe-struck but, compared with TV, newspapers seem more editorially -- and mentally -- balanced. Some have actually displayed a degree of skepticism of claims made by the military and the White House -- what used to be known as "journalism."

On Monday, I received a call from a producer of a major network's prime time news program. He said they wanted to interview me for a piece on how the public's expectation of a quick victory somehow was too high. "But," he hastened to add, "we don't want to focus on the media." I asked him where he thought the public might have received the information that falsely raised their hopes. In chat rooms, perhaps? The problem, I suggested, is that most of the TV commentators on the home front appear to be just as "embedded" with the military as the far braver reporters now in the Iraqi desert.

Surely this is a bipartisan issue. While many on the antiwar side complain about the media's alleged "pro-war bias," those who support the war, and the Bush administration itself, have also been ill served by overly-positive coverage that now has millions of Americans reeling from diminished expectations.

Here, then, is a list of stories that have been widely misreported or poorly reported so far:

1. Saddam may well have been killed in the first night's surprise attack (March 20).

2. Even if he wasn't killed, Iraqi command and control was no doubt "decapitated" (March 22).

3. Umm Qasr has been taken (March 22).

4. Most Iraqis soldiers will not fight for Saddam and instead are surrendering in droves (March 22).

5. Iraqi citizens are greeting Americans as liberators (March 22).

6. An entire division of 8,000 Iraqi soldiers surrendered en masse near Basra (March 23).

7. Several Scud missiles, banned weapons, have been launched against U.S. forces in Kuwait (March 23).

8. Saddam's Fedayeen militia are few in number and do not pose a serious threat (March 23).

9. Basra has been taken (March 23).

10. Umm Qasr has been taken (March 23).

11. A captured chemical plant likely produced chemical weapons (March 23).

12. Nassiriya has been taken (March 23).

13. Umm Qasr has been taken (March 24).

14. The Iraqi government faces a "major rebellion" of anti-Saddam citizens in Basra (March 24).

15. A convoy of 1,000 Iraqi vehicles and Republican Guards are speeding south from Baghdad to engage U.S. troops (March 25).

 

Excellent summary post, rimrocker. The first few are what got me thinking proapganda. If it is all due to simple errors due to haste to scoop each other, how come none of the errors portray the US as less successful or the Iraqis as more sucessful than what actually occured.

#16? The Iraqis executed some British sodiers?

#17 ? The missile that hit he Kuwait shopping center was an Iraqi one????

 

Your point #1 can only describe SOME of the journalists. It can hardly cover a wholesale pro-WH stance. Moreover, the mainstream media are notoriously left-leaning.

Your point #2 makes sense to me. Yet, I doubt that the war journalists have only the military and the government as their sources.

I am pretty sure the WH would seek to control the press. Who wouldn't? I am still quite doubtful how much they can actually control.


BTW, I agree with treeman that domestic legal system and international dealings are not exactly parallel. For one, there are almost no rules to limit the way to gather "intelligence" info from another country. Spying is a "catch me if you can" fair game.

 

Back on topic, I think:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48367-2003Mar29.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,925881,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49317-2003Mar29.html

ordinary Iraqis are armed to the teeth until we come and pacify them, now they get jacked at gunpoint...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44665-2003Mar28.html

It almost doesn't matter who fired the missile at this point to these people...
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/29/1048653901318.html

I've been at a friend's place for a few day and watching some of the wall to wall coverage on MSNBC, Fox, and CNN. I am struck at how little this resembles reporting from the Vietnam war - sanitized now as if we are not responsible enough to see the results of the war for which we have paid. Quite frankly the Al Jazeera coverage I see on Chinese TV is more comprehensive, showing at least both sides damage to each other.

 

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/29/1048653900135.html
Or watch surf between CNN and Al-Jazeera for *balanced* coverage...