Sunday, July 25, 2004

Let Them Eat Yellowcake - UPDATE

This is why I go through the trouble of posting these stories and commentaries, because the media seems to have a warped sense of what is news and what is not news. Case in point, the fact that Saddam Hussein tried to acquire uranium is a substantial reason for the pre-emptive war. When former ambassador Joe Wilson said the president fabricated that claim the president's political enemies went so far as to call for the president's impeachment. Well, now Wilson has been exposed as a liar in multiple instances relating to this single story, and the result...

Washington Post July 25, 2004

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV's allegations that President Bush misled the country about Saddam Hussein seeking uranium from Africa was a huge media story, fueled by an investigation into who outed his CIA-operative wife. According to a database search, NBC carried 40 stories, CBS 30 stories, ABC 18, The Washington Post 96, the New York Times 70, the Los Angeles Times 48.

But a Senate Intelligence Committee report that contradicts some of Wilson's account and supports Bush's State of the Union claim hasn't received nearly as much attention. "NBC Nightly News" and ABC's "World News Tonight" have each done a story. But CBS hasn't reported it -- despite a challenge by Republican Chairman Ed Gillespie on CBS's "Face the Nation," noting that the network featured Wilson on camera 15 times. A spokeswoman says CBS is looking into the matter.

Newspapers have done slightly better. The Post, which was the first to report the findings July 10, has run two stories, an editorial and an ombudsman's column; the New York Times two stories and an op-ed column; and the Los Angeles Times two stories. Wilson, meanwhile, has defended himself from what he calls "a Republican smear campaign" in op-ed pieces in The Post and Los Angeles Times.
So there you have it, 302 stories spreading a lie, only 8 stories admitting the truth, yet the exposed liar is continues to be allowed to write numerous op-ed pieces using lies to defend his lies.

Oh yeah, don't forget he is one of John Kerry's policy advisors, just like Sandy "Which holds more documents, boxers or briefs" Berger.

The story that Saddam really was trying to develop a nuclear weapon means nothing to these people. The fact that millions could die and limited nuclear war break out means nothing. Had Iraq acquired a nuke and attacked us or a friend we would have launched a massive nuclear response, both as retaliation and to warn-off future maniacs. That means all those Iraqis who are now liberated would instead be incinerated. Does this distinction sink into the minds of those who despise the War on Terror despite 9-11 but pandered to Bill Clinton, the president who most frequently sent US troops into combat (and for what vital American interest we may ask)?

They'll be damned if they won't circle the wagons to avoid the embarrassment of confronting a known liar whom they catered to. A liar who sought to disgrace the President for bald-faced political gain. Are they too embarrassed to admit they were misled/biased or are they so biased that they don't want the American people to know that the President really did tell the truth?This isn't about Bush this is about the fact that an entire civilization that thrives on hatred, lies, racism and intolerance is trying to destroy our way of life by bombing and beheading innocent civilians. Whatever one may think of Bush understand this about our enemies: if you have a Gay Pride rally in Washington DC nothing happens, but I doubt you'll ever see one in Mecca, and Madonna would be just another harem girl if people of principle didn't stand up to the tyranny of bin Laden and Co. Bush is protecting the people who hate him.

I repeat: Will the president's enemies do ANYTHING to defeat him?

You can bet your life on it.


Post a Comment

<< Home