View Full Version : Iraq/Al Queda - isthe media misleading you?


Nimrod's Son
07-14-2004, 07:25 PM
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2004/06/28/asparks.DTL&type=printable

According to this S.F. Gate column the 9/11 Comission essentially agreed with the President and his administration's analysis of the possible connections between al Qaeda and Iraq.



A draft report from the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, also known as the 9/11 Commission, was released two weeks ago, and the media declared, in near unison, that the commission found no al Qaeda connection with Iraq and 9/11. The media had already been doggedly pursuing the "Bush misled the American people" theme this year. Call me cynical, but isn't this an election year?
A New York Times headline blared, "Panel Finds No al Qaeda-Iraq Tie," and the Washington Post was equally emphatic: "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed." The panel, however, determined just the opposite, and it is these breathless headline writers who should have been dismissed, for embellishing the truth.

The main problem is that these headlines are simply not true. The 9/11 Commission essentially agreed with the analysis of the president and his administration. Part of the problem feeding this media hysteria is that much of the media is lazy and carries an ideological bias. Rather than follow up on their own leads and conduct their own independent investigation, journalists rely on draft reports written by government sources. Bad idea.

sppunk
07-14-2004, 08:37 PM
Column = opinions.

You should take Newspaper 101.

Nimrod's Son
07-14-2004, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by sppunk
Column = opinions.

You should take Newspaper 101. Yes, obviously it's an editorial, but look at the cited facts.

Column = editorial.
Post on messageboard=editorial.

BeautifulLoser
07-14-2004, 09:26 PM
What about all those interviews and quotes they have on news shows that have people basically saying "Yeah, there weren't any links"...

(can't think of any specifically right now)

sppunk
07-15-2004, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Yes, obviously it's an editorial, but look at the cited facts.

Column = editorial.
Post on messageboard=editorial.

Columns aren't editorials.
Posts on messageboard aren't editorials, either.

Mayfuck
07-15-2004, 01:12 AM
I read the Los Angeles Times everyday and I'm not going to deny that they distort the news by giving Iraq War mishaps front page status and then burying whatever stories that might be perceived as benifical to the Bush administration in the very back pages or just not reporting them at all. The Putin warning wasn't reported in the L.A. times, yet the Abu Ghraib scandal got prominent headline status for almost a whole month.

I still trust our nations newspapers far more than I would with cable news channels. And that it's slanted still doesn't change that the war was a bad idea and that Bush is a dick.

Mayfuck
07-15-2004, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by sppunk


Columns aren't editorials.


Not technically. But they may as well be most of the time.

sppunk
07-15-2004, 01:49 AM
Originally posted by Mayfuck


Not technically. But they may as well be most of the time.

Not really, unless it's Robert fuckup Novak rambling on. But even then his opinion is expressed, whereas an editorial takes a stance and calls for action.

And the LA Times is a very slanted newspaper, unfortunately. It tries to push the fact it's a national paper, but really it's ignored outside of SoCal. I wish that weren't true because it's resources are incredible.

And, I'm glad to see you said that about cable news. It's not just a coincidence Fox News claimed Bush won the election even when Florida had officially declared Gore got its delegates. Because, as you know, one of Bush's relatives that runs it was one of the election officials of that fucked up state.

Future Boy
07-15-2004, 10:50 PM
Heres my problem with it, they wanted it to be Iraq, they asked for it to be Iraq, they were ready to go into Iraq before the intelligence was there to support it, all they needed was a reason. So yay, our intelligence was shitty enough that he looked like a threat or whatever, fine, but they didnt look hard to disprove it, like this commision has. If they had taken the time to verify things they would have eventually gotten to where pretty much everyone seems to be heading, THERE WAS NOTHING THERE!

"the President and his administration's analysis of the possible connections between al Qaeda and Iraq."


Possible shouldnt be worth soldiers lives. We've lost so much and taken so much, I like to think it should have been over something more than a possibility.

Quiet CD
07-17-2004, 12:49 PM
I really dont give a fuck what the 9/11 commission says... when our president doesn't have to testify under oath in front of them, then i have no reason to believe that anything they could have attained is valid...

how can they agree with the president and the administration if they still havent presented irrefutable and undenyable evidence of a connection between the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda, and Iraq

Nimrod's Son
07-17-2004, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Quiet CD
I really dont give a fuck what the 9/11 commission says... when our president doesn't have to testify under oath in front of them, then i have no reason to believe that anything they could have attained is valid...

how can they agree with the president and the administration if they still havent presented irrefutable and undenyable evidence of a connection between the 9/11 attacks, al Qaeda, and Iraq You didn't read the report, I take it.

DeviousJ
07-19-2004, 08:46 PM
All that report says is that "A senior Iraqi officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994" and that "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

I mean, I've heard all this stuff already, through the media no less. How does any of it back up the president's assertions presented as reasoning for going to war? If you want to take that article completely literally, it's true - the 9/11 commission *did* find links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Incredible tenuous, 'possibly happened', 'some guy from Iraq may have met Bin Laden at some point in the past' links but links none the less. Evidence worthy of a push for war? Not even remotely close. this is worse than the WMD argument, because we know that at least at one point he *did* have those.

Last part of the section on Iraq:

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda collaborated on attacks against the United States."

homechicago
07-20-2004, 11:11 PM
considering no one seems to have any f****** real hard core evidence about anything, they cannot be misleading me.

all i feel certain about is that i've been lied to (some lies that are too secret for me to know about) so no news report, no commission report, mean anything to me. the president decided he didn't need to be under oath like the others, and he had a buddy, so that smells like garbage to me. guess he had to get head from someone for him to face grand jury questioning about a preemptive, billions dollar war.

Fonzie
07-20-2004, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Quiet CD
testify under oath

This is what I find funny. So what? People lie under oath all the time. Unless they're caught, there's no issue.

I just wish Jesus would appear in the senate committee with a big baseball bat and twat everyone lying under oath. I'd pay a dollar to see that smackdown.

Nimrod's Son
07-20-2004, 11:58 PM
Originally posted by Quiet CD
I really dont give a fuck what the 9/11 commission says... when our president doesn't have to testify under oath in front of them, then i have no reason to believe that anything they could have attained is valid...
The last President proved that not only could you lie under oath while a sitting president, but you also can get away with it.

Future Boy
07-21-2004, 09:59 AM
Lets have a moment of silence in remembrance of all the lives lost due to Clintons lying. :rolleyes:

homechicago
07-21-2004, 05:43 PM
let's have a moment of silence for the 70 million dollars starr wasted to tell me that monica gives head.

Mayfuck
07-21-2004, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
The last President proved that not only could you lie under oath while a sitting president, but you also can get away with it.

STOP IT. I see conservative talk show hosts do this all the time...excuse one presidents fault by pointing to another's own faults. It irritates me so much :mad:

Corganist
07-21-2004, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Mayfuck


STOP IT. I see conservative talk show hosts do this all the time...excuse one presidents fault by pointing to another's own faults.
But its not excusing Bush's faults. As of right now, Bush has not been proven to have lied, so there's nothing to excuse. The mention of Clinton only goes to show that even incontrovertible proof of lying has been met with a less than stringent standard in the past.

homechicago
07-21-2004, 08:01 PM
But its not excusing Bush's faults. As of right now, Bush has not been proven to have lied, so there's nothing to excuse

right, because ken starr hasn't spent the last three years investigating him - wait, no one has or will ever be able to investigate him, so that statement is pointless. just like conservatives wanted clinton to be guilty by indicting many people for whitewater (which for the record proves the clinton's innocence), i want indictments and grand juries questioning w, laura, and a wide array of folks to prove he did nothing wrong either.