I don't think the hunt for Al Quaeda was abandoned in order to go into Iraq--quite the contrary, both missions are interrelated and occurring simultaneously.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka I don't think the hunt for Al Quaeda was abandoned in order to go into Iraq--quite the contrary, both missions are interrelated and occurring simultaneously.

- But the intelligence was diverted, instead of giving it a full resource and force for looking for the Al Quaeda. After the reports Ive erad from David Kay, and the info coming in almost weekly, I see that Bush committed such a Human Kind mistake with this war. What he should have done, was to deal with Al Quaeda 100%, and then deal with the rest. We all know that Bush had beef with Saddam Hussein, even before 9/11, and that he was allready planning such attack, and 9/11 was the best open door for him to make up all this un proved evidence, and blablabla talk against him, and rally all americans ( As we still currently see ) for a war against Iraq, but now, with David Kay even saying it, the US has fallen into a big mistaken trap, in which they never even went with TRUE and reliable evidence.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

OK, great--so how does this make Drudge a liar or misrepresentative?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka OK, great--so how does this make Drudge a liar or misrepresentative?

Because...... these people don't like the Drudge report? Anyway, their opinion on the Drudge report doesn't matter to me. After all,They probably go to get their news from places like CNN, ABC,and The washington post. (All liberal sources. Especially CNN/CNN international.)

___________________
~Nessa

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Because...... these people don't like the Drudge report? Anyway, their opinion on the Drudge report doesn't matter to me. After all,They probably go to get their news from places like CNN, ABC,and The washington post. (All liberal sources. Especially CNN/CNN international.)

- Sources that come straight from the mouths of representatives of the Bush Administration, as the guy called " David Kay" who actually retired been the Chief inspector, or maybe from the words that Collin Powell said today in Georgia about the cause of not finding any WMD... FOX is the most BIAS media out there, and the most extremists. ( Right Wing ).I guess those are your sources right?.. atleast CNN, Washington, New York times is all factual information, Not biased.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka OK, great--so how does this make Drudge a liar or misrepresentative?

When Drudge yanked a few quotes out of the entirety of Clark's testimony, took them out of context, and even scrambled some of them, that constitutes at the very least a misrepresentation of facts.

Luckily the media saw through it.

quote:

For once, press acts just as it should Gene Lyons To me, the single most significant event of the 2004 election campaign hasn’t been the Iowa caucuses or President Bush’s State of the Union address. Rather, it was the quick debunking of an attempted smear of retired Gen. Wesley Clark by a half-dozen or so news organizations functioning exactly as a free press should. Basically, the Republican National Committee got caught doctoring Clark’s words in a vain attempt to manufacture a "flip-flop" on the Iraq war. Given the dreadful standard set during the 2000 campaign, when the Washington insiders who set the tone of political coverage at the nation’s major newspapers, magazines and TV networks conducted themselves like a high school clique trying to fix a prom queen election, the Clark incident came as a welcome surprise. Has war sobered them, or has American journalism begun to recover from Ted Baxter Syndrome ? Ted Baxter, for the uninitiated, was the comically pompous anchorman on "The Mary Tyler Moore Show." Like many celebrity pundits of the cable TV era, he thought the news was about him. But hold the sociology. First, a quick outline of the ill-fated effort to portray Clark as a two-faced opportunist. Whether or not the incident shows GOP fear of facing the former four-star general in the November election, as Clark insisted, it definitely indicates that turning the Democratic nominee into a caricature won’t be as easy as lampooning Al Gore with phony stories like "inventing the Internet," "earth-tone clothing," etc. What happened was that on the same day RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie had a speech scheduled in Little Rock, Clark’s hometown, the infamous "Drudge Report" just happened to produce one of its "worldwide exclusives" claiming to show that, contrary to his campaign rhetoric in New Hampshire, Clark supported Bush’s rush to war with Iraq during congressional testimony in 2002. In his speech, Gillespie portrayed Clark as a hypocrite and turncoat. "There was no stronger case made than that expert testimony, the testimony of Gen. Wesley Clark," Gillespie claimed. Drudge "reported" a passage from Clark’s testimony that was suspiciously like to that in an RNC fax. "There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat," Clark supposedly said. ". . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001. . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." But the quote turned out to be problematic, as Knight-Ridder reporters Dana Hull and Drew Brown determined in an article headlined: "GOP chair claims Clark supported war; transcripts show otherwise." Clark’s words had been taken completely out of context. In fact, he had pointedly argued that Iraq was a manageable problem and no imminent threat existed. He’d urged that Bush form "the broadest possible coalition including our NATO allies. . . . [Force] should be used as the last resort after all diplomatic means have been exhausted." The reporters also noticed that the Drudge/RNC quote "further distorted Clark’s testimony" by adding sentences they were unable to find in the transcript. Dogged research by the estimable Josh Marshall on his Talking Points Memo Web site subsequently determined that the first and last sentences appeared on Page 6, the bit about post-9 /11 defensive posture on Pages 25-26. Indeed, Clark argued that the U.S. was actually in a better strategic position vs. Iraq, leaving ample time for diplomacy. In short, Clark’s words had been yanked out context and their order jumbled to alter their meaning. The ellipses concealed gaps of 11,500 words, roughly a dozen times the length of this column. I’d argue they were essentially manufactured quotes, a firing offense at any self-respecting journalistic organization—not a phrase which describes "The Drudge Report." The heartening part was that it wasn’t only Knight-Ridder and Josh Marshall and liberal watchdog sites like mediawhoresonline.com that blew the whistle. While some of the usual suspects such as The Washington Timesand The Wall Street Journal Editorial page got taken (or pretended to get taken) for a ride, many others did not. According to the Columbia Journalism Review’s brand-new Web site, The Campaign Desk, "most of the major newspapers including the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Boston Globe ran pieces reflecting the whole story." (The Democrat-Gazette also got it right.) The brainchild of the renowned journalism school’s new dean, Nicholas Lemman, CJR’s new enterprise means to provide "real-time" media criticism putting the Paula Zahns of the world on notice. (On her CNN broadcast, Zahn treated the Drudge quotes as factual.) Next time, sweetheart, do your homework and get the facts. Your professional reputation may once again depend upon it. Free-lance columnist Gene Lyons is a Little Rock author and recipient of the National Magazine Award. 21-01-2004

Like I've said, if you want to believe fabrications that suit your own self-interest, that's your prerogative. I don't read (or at least take seriously) left-wing "news" sites that fabricate elements of their stories, and I refuse to be manipulated in that way by any media source. The Drudge Report is of little use to any person concerned with truth, except perhaps for an occasional chuckle.

My advice would be to stick to The Wall Street Journal or some more reputable conservative news source.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by LiquidX - Sources that come straight from the mouths of representatives of the Bush Administration, as the guy called " David Kay" who actually retired been the Chief inspector, or maybe from the words that Collin Powell said today in Georgia about the cause of not finding any WMD... FOX is the most BIAS media out there, and the most extremists. ( Right Wing ).I guess those are your sources right?.. atleast CNN, Washington, New York times is all factual information, Not biased.

Fox isn't bias, It has both liberal AND conservatives, FYI.

No,CNN,New York times,and The washington post are not all factual information.

The New york times is a huge joke,You want to blame the Drudge report for lieing? Well you picked the wrong news source to bring up. The NY times lied,more than once I assure you.

So, what about the guy the New york times fired for making stuff up? Hmm. This should be an interesting reply.

___________________
~Nessa

That's true, but he was fired.

Is Drudge going to fire himself? No.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSaenz That's true, but he was fired. Is Drudge going to fire himself? No.

excellent point...


anyone who is liberal or conservative should read the Financial Times, as it gives much insight into global politics - not that Wes Clark ate a crossaint for lunch|

___________________
'That's like telling a Kodiak bear to stop fcking older men.'

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Fox isn't bias, It has both liberal AND conservatives, FYI. No,CNN,New York times,and The washington post are not all factual information. The New york times is a huge joke,You want to blame the Drudge report for lieing? Well you picked the wrong news source to bring up. The NY times lied,more than once I assure you. So, what about the guy the New york times fired for making stuff up? Hmm. This should be an interesting reply.

Sorry, I expressed myself wrong here. I tried to say that the sources I named ( CNN, NY TIMES etc etc ) I take as more factual then what Fox brings, although I know that the Media in general has been overtaking things differently, therefore not the whole truth has been exposed ( especially here in America lately ). AS for FOX not been bias, ooh please man, everyone knows that, even the most conservatives have admitted it here, why not you. I admit that some liberal sources do bang on Bush, but FOX has brought a right wind extremist enterntainment trend, something that Liberal sources have yet to bring ( O'Railly show for an example ). You can just see it when you see that Bush has a sudden drop or disadvantage, it barely shows on FOX, but when Bush has a rise on his rating or did something good, its place all over FOX highlighted in bold and showned ever 5 seconds, and gone over as if he had just become the World Hero.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by WhoaNellie1487 Fox isn't bias, It has both liberal AND conservatives, FYI.

What FOX News channel are you watching?