The Shotgun Blog
« Can We Call Obama Anti-American Now? | Main | Thinly veiled racism »
Friday, March 14, 2008
MSM gets Iraq wrong, again
I'm guessing the news about a new Pentagon report regarding Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism has reached the Great White North. I'm also guessing most have heard only the MSM spin that said report says Saddam never had anything to do with al Qaeda. I'm finally guessing some (if not most) would agree with the MSM spin.
Posted by D.J. McGuire on March 14, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5512fea738834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference MSM gets Iraq wrong, again:
Comments
The MSM is clearly the propagandist for the Dems and Liberals. You know, public relations department. Most will figure that all out soon enough. I haven't bought a newspaper in 4 years nor have I watched the CBC in a long time. The last gut wretching thing I saw from the CBC was a video clip (on the net) of an Avi Lewis interview. The only place I can get real news is from the Blogs. Sign-O-the-times?
Posted by: Sounder | 2008-03-14 9:27:54 AM
Saddam Hussein was an inspiration to liberals, feminists, social activists, environmentalists, peaceniks... any group that seeks absolute power over their fellow human beings.
Posted by: philanthropist | 2008-03-14 10:00:50 AM
Media vs. Bush:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fze2J2Ve9is
via: http://whythatsdelightful.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/rte-vs-bush/
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-03-14 10:09:00 AM
philanthropist | 14-Mar-08 10:00:50 AM
Too bad they can't be inspired by Saddam to hide in a septic hole in the ground.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-03-14 10:21:47 AM
I'm amazed at the quality of the doctored video on snowman's link. The banned Bush video really sounds authentic. With this kind of quality available, how can we ever be sure if any digital recording is authentic?
Add to this the fact that a video can end up on millions of hard drives around the world. People watch it over, and over. Pretty soon it's a fact in so many minds that it becomes a matter of historical record. All this from some insignificant geek with a $500 computer and some shared software. Only in America.
Maybe I should rethink the insignificant comment.
Posted by: dp | 2008-03-14 10:39:07 AM
Maybe I should rethink the insignificant comment.
Posted by: dp | 14-Mar-08 10:39:07 AM
You could always write RTE and ask them for a copy of the tape. I am sure they are willing to share it with you. Then you can put it somewhere and show the world how it really went.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-03-14 10:49:26 AM
You would think that after all the embarrassments the press has suffered whenever they touch anything to do with Bush, they would learn to be more prudent. Then again, they have their readerships to consider, and you print what your constituency buys. A free press does not mean an honest one.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-03-14 4:56:56 PM
The Pentagon report said: “While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely.”
This sounds like a pretty tenuous relationship between Saddam and al Qaeda. This statement seems to reveal only that Saddam was reluctantly prepared to rely on a freelance labour pool of criminal thugs who he mistrusted and monitored closely. This would suggest that Saddam did not see his own interests to be in-line with al Qaeda.
I’m not a foreign policy expert, but, from what I understand, America’s own relationship with bin Laden was much more direct and less cautious than this.
BTW, why do they refer to Saddam Hussein by his first name in a Pentagon report?
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-03-14 5:11:48 PM
Matthew
"This statement seems to reveal only that Saddam was reluctantly prepared to rely on a freelance labour pool of criminal thugs who he mistrusted and monitored closely."
Oh, if that's all it was, then. Saddam was *reluctant* to employ murderers to commit murder for him. That's a relief. For a while there, I thought he was enthusiastic.
I guess that Saddam can now rest in peace with his honour and good name in tact.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-14 5:35:10 PM
The man is a thug, H2O. But the question is whether or not he has meaningful ties to al Qaeda. This report doesn't seem to make that case.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-03-14 9:57:39 PM
Define "meaningful," Matthew. Really, are you a defence attorney or something? Saddam used al-Qaeda when it served his needs. Al-Qaeda is no ordinary band of cutpurses and footpads; they are TERRORISTS. A turd by any other name would smell as foul. And then there was that business of donating $25,000 to the family of every suicide bomber during the intifada. Not only did Saddam use terror, he actively promoted it, both within and without his borders.
"Meaningful" ties, he says. That's like being "slightly" pregnant.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-03-14 10:25:28 PM
I'm just commenting on the Pentagon report which spells out the nature of the relationship. I'm sure Saddam would have had no problem deploying al Qaeda to serve his nefarious purposes, as I mentioned. But this report doesn't imply any kind of alliance. In fact, it restates that Saddam mistrusted al Qaeda and that no formal coordination existed.
But what does it matter? I thought the goal of the invasion was to prevent Saddam from developing WMD and to build democratic institutions in the region. Why stretch the intelligence? There's enough evidence that Saddam was a tyrant.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2008-03-14 10:54:08 PM
Matthew
"But what does it matter? I thought the goal of the invasion was to prevent Saddam from developing WMD and to build democratic institutions in the region. Why stretch the intelligence? There's enough evidence that Saddam was a tyrant."
Those were 2 goals on a list of almost 2 dozen goals. My personal reason for support was to undercut his ties to terrorism. Here, we have an admission that he was willing *albeit reluctantly* (snicker) to use terrorists for his own purposes. CASE CLOSED.
Al-Qaeda was not the primary reason. TERRORISM was.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-03-15 7:03:29 AM
Hindsight and what "we all knew" and what "we all thought" is an ever moving target, with media folks.
Matthew says: "...I thought the goal of the invasion was to prevent Saddam from developing WMD...".
Unlike Matthew, I got myself recalled back onto active military duty for the "first Gulf War" and I offered my services, half-heartedly (via an e-mail) for the second-present War on Terrorism.
But on the actual day that our military forces entered Bhagdad, Iraq, I was absolutely fearful and almost certain that Saddaam undoubtedly had a nuclear device buried beneath that city and that he would in fact detonate it, as the madman he was, and kill ALL of our soldiers, as well as his own people (then he could - at that time - have just taken his $xxx billions from Swiss bank accounts and moved to live peacefully as a main stream media "luminary" in Paris, France or some other Communist capital of Europe).
THAT is what I thought, back then, and I still think Sadaam had every weapon or access or alliance that he wanted with every evil force on this earth.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2008-03-15 10:46:29 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.