I don't believe it

[Shelby07]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041101888.html

http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8837

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200603...r-in-iraq.html

Just a few links, and really just the tip of the iceberg.


The rest of you, if you don't like it, don't read it. I don't care either way.

The articles you refered to are common knowledge. I have to say that stories riddled with phrases like "one page reports", "unnamed informants" and any story involving Rove or Wilson make me raise an eyebrow. There have been so many stories, allegations and spin associated with these types of stories that one is basically left with a "pick whatever version you like" scenario. No conclusions other than supposition. These kinds of articles are exactly what I am talking about when I say I have to filter out spin and bias.

The first article does nothing to explain why the democrats backpeddled from their original assessment that we needed to stop Saddam, nor does it reference any "lies" told by Bush for the purpose of gaining support to enter Iraq. It does support the fact that pre-war intelligence was wrong, not fabricated.

Looking at the title of the web site in your second example, I would immediately be suspect of their agenda. After reading the article I would categorize it as spin. And after browsing other articles on the web site it is clear to me that all of their articles are biased. They even go so far in one of their articles as to make an argument that Hezbolla is really not trying to kill Jews. Their supporting evidence seems to be the background shots on BBC reports.

The third link references lots of spin from the Karl Rove case. Hearings and preceedings produced conclusions spun to whatever side of the argument one favors.

And as for the author of the 4th reference...

http://neveryetmelted.com/?p=656


I have not seen much in the way of the printed or spoken word where I could not say it had been taken out of context or spun into meaning something other than its original meaning. Political spin doctors get paid lots of money to do just that, and they have no consequences for misrepresenting the truth.

I see nothing in those references that cannot be attributed to spin or bias depending on what side you are on.

Edit:

I base most of my opinion on the things that I remember, since I am very skeptical of the news media, be it MSNBC or FOX. I do watch them both and see very different slants in their stories and commentaries. But what I remember is everyone jumping on the bandwagon when we first went into Iraq. There was no uproar or dissention from politicians or even the news media. Battle lines were drawn during the election campaigns when both parties were maneuvering for votes. I will admit that I don't have the answers as the news slants everything, but I do remember very clearly how it all played out. I can believe that our intelligence may have been wrong, but I just can't see how Bush was able to dupe every single member of the democratic party the way they are all claiming, except for Lieberman.

Question about Lieberman's failed bid. Do you think that if the events that happened today had occured a few days earlier it would have made a difference in Tuesday's primary election?