PDA

View Full Version : Wag The Dog Anyone?



cyprushil
05-26-2003, 08:31 AM
Incredible. The warmongers are shameless. Maybe the worst part is that they seem assured they can lie and never be accountable, that the majority of the US public will never know about the truth. Which suggests an incredible control of the major media there (and an incredible gullibility of the average American?)

Wonder if anyone will ever be challenged on their bald face lies, General Brooks for instance.



The Empires new clothes anyone? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/3028585.stm)

Rat Faced
05-26-2003, 10:19 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol:


War is war, and every side needs their Propaganda.......

j2k4
05-26-2003, 02:11 PM
The Beeb has no agenda-it fairly throbs with fairness.

Who has the definitive goods on this story?

There is sustenance for all at the propaganda buffet. ;)

clocker
05-26-2003, 02:25 PM
Great!

I'm starving!

cyprushil
05-26-2003, 03:26 PM
but before all that we had
this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/2938589.stm)

Any One know if its on Kazza Yet.....

j2k4
05-26-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by cyprushil@26 May 2003 - 10:26
but before all that we had
this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/2938589.stm)

Any One know if its on Kazza Yet.....
Yes-

I remember this from before the war-

They first had to find someone to play the part of "Jessica Lynch"; someone who looked just like the girl described during the storyboarding process.... <_<

clocker
05-26-2003, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@26 May 2003 - 09:57

Yes-

I remember this from before the war-

They first had to find someone to play the part of "Jessica Lynch"; someone who looked just like the girl described during the storyboarding process.... <_<
I believe Sarah Michelle Gellar has some free time now...

j2k4
05-26-2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by clocker+26 May 2003 - 12:44--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 26 May 2003 - 12:44)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@26 May 2003 - 09:57

Yes-

I remember this from before the war-

They first had to find someone to play the part of "Jessica Lynch"; someone who looked just like the girl described during the storyboarding process.... <_<
I believe Sarah Michelle Gellar has some free time now... [/b][/quote]
Yes-she does.

Call Oliver Stone immediately&#33;&#33; :lol:

TheDave
05-30-2003, 09:33 PM
how did they plan it before the war, it didnt happen till the war was on did it

clocker
05-30-2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by TheDave@30 May 2003 - 15:33
how did they plan it before the war, it didnt happen till the war was on did it
The scenario was certainly flexible enough that the right set of circumstances was bound to happen.

Whether it was preplanned months in advance or cooked up on the scene matters not to me.
The completely lame execution and lack of a good cover story/explanation is what chaps my knickers.

When I was in college, a magazine I worked on hoaxed the theft of the Olympic flame ( 1968, Mexico City). We took these half assed pictures outside of Charlottesville that claimed to show the exchange of the real torch for one lit with my Zippo ( the very same lighter I still have today, in fact). We contacted The Washington Post and the Mexican Embassy and offered to run the "real" flame up to D.C. and deliver it to the Mexican Ambassador.
Much to our amazement they took us completely seriously and we were covered internationally ( I know cause we got hate mail for months from every Latin American country you can name). We had a State Trooper escort and arranged a relay run, just like the real thing from C&#39;ville to Washington. The Mexican Ambassador himself accepted ( we had gotten so cocky we had insisted that only he would do) and the hoax was never exposed for the silly, inept college prank that it was.

Why couldn&#39;t our military with the help of Hollywood professionals have done just a little bit better than we callow and naive college geeks of 35 yrs. ago?
Christ, I would have been a consultant for a pittance. :D

cyprushil
05-30-2003, 11:14 PM
I feel I should own up to something here, I ripped this whole post from and a forum run and written in by EX Pat Americans.

I just wanted to see the reaction it got, The following was all written by Ex Pat Americans.


" Wag the Dog Anyone? "

"Incredible. The warmongers are shameless. Maybe the worst part is that they seem assured they can lie and never be accountable, that the majority of the US public will never know about the truth. Which suggests an incredible control of the major media there (and an incredible gullibility of the average American?)

"Wonder if anyone will ever be challenged on their bald face lies, General Brooks for instance."



"The Empires new clothes anyone? "


Apologies, but it was something I had to do for myself.



Edit - Including the link to the BBC Website.

OlderThanDirt
06-04-2003, 12:06 AM
I&#39;ve been thinking about this Jessica Lynch thing. A co-worker chided me at work a couple of days ago, saying her rescue had been "dramatized." My reply was along these lines -- "Oh, that&#39;s just terrible. I mean, really ... how could anybody get away with dramatizing an otherwise everyday/ordinary event ... such as being behind enemy lines and under risk of death. What kind of DRAMA is there in THAT situation?"

Of course :D I was being a bit cheeky with her, hehe. But I think there is one possibility no one has thought of. There are two things about the Jessica Lynch scenario that we all KNOW to be factual:

(1) NBC will be releasing a TV-movie based on "her story."
(2) NBC (and their advertisers) wants the widest possible audience for the movie.

Is it the government wagging the dog ... or might it be the film studio trying to hype up the story -- to make certain it&#39;s on everybody&#39;s lips and everybody&#39;s mind to guarantee a "captive" audience for the film? And wouldn&#39;t blaming this "dramatizing" on the government be a surefire tool to keep the topic on everyone&#39;s front burner of discussion?

clocker
06-04-2003, 12:22 AM
OTD,
We now have a "Conspiracy Theories" thread for silliness like that. As you know every other thread here is rigorously rooted in FACT. :P

OlderThanDirt
06-04-2003, 12:39 AM
clocker wrote:

OTD,
We now have a "Conspiracy Theories" thread for silliness like that. As you know every other thread here is rigorously rooted in FACT. :P

Sorry for being off-topic. I realize that the idea of a film company hyping its own product is preposterous :lol: , but, I just couldn&#39;t help myself in posting the thought.

clocker
06-04-2003, 12:56 AM
No, the concept is very believable.

It&#39;s just that if Hollywood had been behind this farce they wouldn&#39;t have left as many loose ends.

OlderThanDirt
06-04-2003, 01:00 AM
clocker wrote:

It&#39;s just that if Hollywood had been behind this farce they wouldn&#39;t have left as many loose ends.

On the contrary, "loose ends" are the spice of life ... and talk ... and hype. How much of this "proof" of government dramatization was based on (ahem) "an unnamed source on condition of anonimity?" :ph34r:

clocker
06-04-2003, 01:07 AM
I saw interviews with doctors and nurses who were on site.
They didn&#39;t seem to be anonymous.

myfiles3000
06-04-2003, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@4 June 2003 - 01:06
I&#39;ve been thinking about this Jessica Lynch thing. A co-worker chided me at work a couple of days ago, saying her rescue had been "dramatized." My reply was along these lines -- "Oh, that&#39;s just terrible. I mean, really ... how could anybody get away with dramatizing an otherwise everyday/ordinary event ... such as being behind enemy lines and under risk of death. What kind of DRAMA is there in THAT situation?"

Of course :D I was being a bit cheeky with her, hehe. But I think there is one possibility no one has thought of. There are two things about the Jessica Lynch scenario that we all KNOW to be factual:

(1) NBC will be releasing a TV-movie based on "her story."
(2) NBC (and their advertisers) wants the widest possible audience for the movie.

Is it the government wagging the dog ... or might it be the film studio trying to hype up the story -- to make certain it&#39;s on everybody&#39;s lips and everybody&#39;s mind to guarantee a "captive" audience for the film? And wouldn&#39;t blaming this "dramatizing" on the government be a surefire tool to keep the topic on everyone&#39;s front burner of discussion?
okay, thats just plain dumb. The controversy is not about the networks behaviour, an entirely separate issue, but whether or not the government deliberately misled the world regarding the circumstances of lynch&#39;s &#39;rescue.&#39; and there is overwhelming evidence that they did. anyway, i&#39;ll lower myself to this level of analysis long enough to point out that the US government and military would not sit back and be made to look like fools just so some network can hype a made for tv movie. jesus.

OlderThanDirt
06-04-2003, 01:18 AM
clocker wrote:

I saw interviews with doctors and nurses who were on site.&nbsp; They didn&#39;t seem to be anonymous.

Pardon me for asking but did you see these interviews on "NBC" News? Or was this based on interviews performed by a BBC journalist (who has since been discredited)?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/19/...kampener.lynch/ (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/19/cnna.kampener.lynch/)

myfiles3000
06-04-2003, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@4 June 2003 - 02:00
How much of this "proof" of government dramatization was based on (ahem) "an unnamed source on condition of anonimity?" :ph34r:
otd, now i&#39;m pissed. why not do a little research before you bother to get our attention?&#33; do you an article you&#39;d like to cite? or are you just speculating? i for one do not want to read random, easily-verifiable speculations anymore than i want to know about your bowel movements. so please keep both phenomena to yourself.

OlderThanDirt
06-04-2003, 01:21 AM
myfiles3000 wrote:

anyway, i&#39;ll lower myself to this level of analysis long enough to point out that the US government and military would not sit back and be made to look like fools just so some network can hype a made for tv movie. jesus.

Horse manure. The US government/military doesn&#39;t care a whit about that. jesus.

clocker
06-04-2003, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@3 June 2003 - 19:18


Pardon me for asking but did you see these interviews on "NBC" News? Or was this based on interviews performed by a BBC journalist (who has since been discredited)?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/19/...kampener.lynch/ (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/19/cnna.kampener.lynch/)
Your link doesn&#39;t seem to discredit Kampener in the slightest.

By whom has he been discredited?
Bill O&#39;Reilly?

myfiles3000
06-04-2003, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@4 June 2003 - 02:21

myfiles3000 wrote:

anyway, i&#39;ll lower myself to this level of analysis long enough to point out that the US government and military would not sit back and be made to look like fools just so some network can hype a made for tv movie. jesus.

Horse manure. The US government/military doesn&#39;t care a whit about that. jesus.
hey, i&#39;m just happy you&#39;re able to use a computer. you must be very special.

OlderThanDirt
06-04-2003, 01:37 AM
clocker wrote:

Your link doesn&#39;t seem to discredit Kampener in the slightest.

Uh ... read it again ... especially the mention of John Vauss, a CNN reporter embedded with the team that rescued Lynch ... and that Kampener is basing his take on the testimony of "Iraqi" medical personnel.

clocker
06-04-2003, 02:00 AM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@3 June 2003 - 19:37


Uh ... read it again ... especially the mention of John Vauss, a CNN reporter embedded with the team that rescued Lynch ... and that Kampener is basing his take on the testimony of "Iraqi" medical personnel.
Okay, I read it again ( and I&#39;m trying to remain persuadable here) but I still don&#39;t get it. Didn&#39;t Vause file the report about the ambulance?
And does being Iraqi immediately cast a pall over your veracity? They were doctors, right?

BTW, wouldn&#39;t incontravertible evidence of Lynch&#39;s bullet /stab wounds pretty much defuse this whole brouhaha? Why not not just release some X-rays and medical reports and halt this whole situation before it degenerates into another JFK autopsy fiasco?
Even her family, who I would expect to be freely forthcoming, are being strangely closemouthed about the real extent of her injuries.

OlderThanDirt
06-04-2003, 02:34 AM
clocker wrote:

And does being Iraqi immediately cast a pall over your veracity? They were doctors, right?

I watched this rescue on Fox News. It was dark. And this is the exact quote of Iraqi doctors from Kampener&#39;s piece:

"It says like a film in Hollywood, they cried go, go, go. They shot with guns, and blanks with bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions, and break the door. We were very scared."

How could anyone, doctor or not, tell the difference between a bullet and a blank in the dark? Do blanks break doors?


BTW, wouldn&#39;t incontravertible evidence of Lynch&#39;s bullet /stab wounds pretty much defuse this whole brouhaha? Why not not just release some X-rays and medical reports and halt this whole situation before it degenerates into another JFK autopsy fiasco? Even her family, who I would expect to be freely forthcoming, are being strangely closemouthed about the real extent of her injuries.

I agree. But NO ONE but Lynch (an adult) has the right to release her private medical info to anybody. And I don&#39;t think her being close-mouthed on the subject is strange at all. In fact, that may have been part of her movie deal ... a promise to "keep quiet" until the film is released. Such gag-clauses are not uncommon in situations involving "true-to-life" movie deals with people in the public eye. And, we even have a more recent example of this. Remember that NY Times reporter who was caught plagarizing/falsifying his work. He&#39;s refused comment to the press about the incident. And even those at the NY Times are not surprised since he&#39;s been offered a &#036;9 million movie deal for "his story."

"True story" movie deals generally involve "exclusive rights" clauses. If Lynch told her story for free to the press before the film hits TV, NBC would probably take her to court to get their money back. Money talks.

clocker
06-04-2003, 03:00 AM
[QUOTE]clocker wrote:

And does being Iraqi immediately cast a pall over your veracity? They were doctors, right?

I watched this rescue on Fox News. It was dark. And this is the exact quote of Iraqi doctors from Kampener&#39;s piece:

"It says like a film in Hollywood, they cried go, go, go. They shot with guns, and blanks with bullets, blanks and the sound of explosions, and break the door. We were very scared."

How could anyone, doctor or not, tell the difference between a bullet and a blank in the dark? Do blanks break doors?

Okay.
Their English is broken.
I don&#39;t necessarily read that to mean that the blanks broke the doors.
But so what?

Isn&#39;t the point here that some people are alleging that the whole rescue was overhyped and basically a staged for the cameras event? We seem to be at a "she says-he says" impasse.


No fair&#33; You edited your post while I was responding. Now this is all screwed up&#33; :P

clocker
06-04-2003, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@3 June 2003 - 20:34
Remember that NY Times reporter who was caught plagarizing/falsifying his work. He&#39;s refused comment to the press about the incident. And even those at the NY Times are not surprised since he&#39;s been offered a &#036;9 million movie deal for "his story."
By whom?
Last I heard negotiations for his book deal had broken down and he was without a publisher.

OlderThanDirt
06-04-2003, 03:21 AM
David Vigliano is negotiating the book and movie deals separately for Blair, though I&#39;m certain both the studio and eventual publisher (if there is one) would like a tie-in between the release dates. As of a May 31st article in the New Orleans Times Picayune, the negotiations (and &#036;9 million asking price for movie rights) are still on track. How the book deal is going is something I don&#39;t know.


Okay.
Their English is broken.
I don&#39;t necessarily read that to mean that the blanks broke the doors.
But so what?

But I don&#39;t necessarily see what that has to do with being able to see the difference between a blank and a bullet in the dark ... especially if the doctors were scared as they said they were. And maybe they said "blanks" because they didn&#39;t see where the bullets hit ... which doesn&#39;t necessarily make them blanks.


Isn&#39;t the point here that some people are alleging that the whole rescue was overhyped and basically a staged for the cameras event? We seem to be at a "she says-he says" impasse.

Yes ... and it&#39;s an impasse that won&#39;t be settled until after NBC airs their film (and only if Lynch wants to speak out then). I hope she does. I agree that this could turn into a JFK type brouhaha if she doesn&#39;t.

clocker
06-04-2003, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@3 June 2003 - 21:21


Yes ... and it&#39;s an impasse that won&#39;t be settled until after NBC airs their film (and only if Lynch wants to speak out then). I hope she does. I agree that this could turn into a JFK type brouhaha if she doesn&#39;t.
I&#39;m confused ( and somewhat startled).
You would accept a NBC made for TV movie as the definitive version of what happened?

Sidebar: I have no knowledge either way on this so please correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but- when you become a soldier doesn&#39;t the Army (or whatever branch) basically usurp your right to privacy re: medical records?

OlderThanDirt
06-04-2003, 03:46 AM
clocker wrote:

I&#39;m confused ( and somewhat startled).
You would accept a NBC made for TV movie as the definitive version of what happened?

Didn&#39;t say that. I&#39;m suggesting that Lynch&#39;s contract with NBC required her to sign an "exclusive rights" clause, forbidding her to discuss the matter until their film was released. It is Lynch, not NBC, that I hope will speak up once she&#39;s no longer bound by that clause. Heck, hehe, I don&#39;t even plan to watch the movie.


Sidebar: I have no knowledge either way on this so please correct me if I&#39;m wrong, but- when you become a soldier doesn&#39;t the Army (or whatever branch) basically usurp your right to privacy re: medical records?

Absolutely not.

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-04-2003, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@4 June 2003 - 02:37
Uh ... read it again ... especially the mention of John Vauss, a CNN reporter embedded with the team that rescued Lynch ... and that Kampener is basing his take on the testimony of "Iraqi" medical personnel.
C&#39;mon people&#33; :o

OTD&#39;s qoute lays it all out&#33;

Who do you believe?
The soldiers and reporters who we&#39;re there
OR
Iraqi Doctors who&#39;s doctoring is in question due to all the dead US soldiers and others in there "care"?
May I say that If you tend to believe the "doctors" then all subsequent posts you make should be drawn into question.

I will admit that only the US Gov. would release film that bad.

clocker
06-04-2003, 04:02 AM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@3 June 2003 - 21:46


Didn&#39;t say that. I&#39;m suggesting that Lynch&#39;s contract with NBC required her to sign an "exclusive rights" clause, forbidding her to discuss the matter until their film was released. It is Lynch, not NBC, that I hope will speak up once she&#39;s no longer bound by that clause. Heck, hehe, I don&#39;t even plan to watch the movie.


You are suggesting that such a clause exists or you know it?

OlderThanDirt
06-04-2003, 04:08 AM
clocker wrote:

You are suggesting that such a clause exists or you know it?

Suggesting ... but it&#39;s an educated suggestion. Click on my name to the left and read my profile. I&#39;m not a publishing or author-rights guru, but I didn&#39;t just fall off the haywagon, either.

ShockAndAwe^i^
06-04-2003, 04:12 AM
Yeah
I don&#39;t believe that loss of memory crap either.

OlderThanDirt
06-04-2003, 04:27 AM
ShockAndAwe^i^ wrote:

Yeah
I don&#39;t believe that loss of memory crap either.

It&#39;s a convenient answer, isn&#39;t it :rolleyes: . Really, though, I do hope she comes clean after the movie is aired. But, if she doesn&#39;t, I wouldn&#39;t blame her. She&#39;s probably fed up with all the media hoopla. It wouldn&#39;t surprise me if she just cashed her check, called a press conference to flip the bird at everyone, and split&#33;

j2k4
06-04-2003, 04:49 AM
Suffice it to say the tail and the dog have suffered a mysterious and unfortunate disconnect. :huh:

we await the attending surgeon, who (hopefully) can reconstruct a semblance of truth. ;)

OlderThanDirt
06-04-2003, 06:00 AM
j2k4 wrote:

we await the attending surgeon, who (hopefully) can reconstruct a semblance of truth.

Well, not all of us are waiting (grin). For the sake of the issue, I hope her memory returns after NBC airs the movie. But if her memory doesn&#39;t return, that&#39;s OK. The nice thing about America is that people will latch onto anything to bitch about ... and by the time the movie airs, we&#39;ll all be bitching about something else anyway. :D

j2k4
06-04-2003, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@4 June 2003 - 01:00

j2k4 wrote:

we await the attending surgeon, who (hopefully) can reconstruct a semblance of truth.

Well, not all of us are waiting (grin). For the sake of the issue, I hope her memory returns after NBC airs the movie. But if her memory doesn&#39;t return, that&#39;s OK. The nice thing about America is that people will latch onto anything to bitch about ... and by the time the movie airs, we&#39;ll all be bitching about something else anyway. :D
Time do pass, don&#39;t it? ;)

clocker
06-04-2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@4 June 2003 - 00:00
The nice thing about America is that people will latch onto anything to bitch about ... and by the time the movie airs, we&#39;ll all be bitching about something else anyway. :D
Actually, I think they&#39;re counting on this phenomonon.
In a couple of months, after the TV movie has aired, you can bet your boots that some intrepid reporter will ask:" But, er, what about the allegations that this whole episode was staged?"

And the response will be:" Why are you dredging those OLD allegations up now? We&#39;ve moved on and have more important thing to worry about&#33;"
Using the passage of time to minimize the relevance/marginalize the doubters of the "official version" seems to be a favorite tactic of this Admin. ( and their apologists in the media).

j2k4
06-04-2003, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by clocker+4 June 2003 - 08:58--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 4 June 2003 - 08:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--OlderThanDirt@4 June 2003 - 00:00
The nice thing about America is that people will latch onto anything to bitch about ... and by the time the movie airs, we&#39;ll all be bitching about something else anyway. :D
Actually, I think they&#39;re counting on this phenomonon.
In a couple of months, after the TV movie has aired, you can bet your boots that some intrepid reporter will ask:" But, er, what about the allegations that this whole episode was staged?"

And the response will be:" Why are you dredging those OLD allegations up now? We&#39;ve moved on and have more important thing to worry about&#33;"
Using the passage of time to minimize the relevance/marginalize the doubters of the "official version" seems to be a favorite tactic of this Admin. ( and their apologists in the media). [/b][/quote]
No apologies here.

Just a willingness to assign the question to the same "hold" bin wherein resides the WMD issue, however temporarily. ;)

clocker
06-04-2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@4 June 2003 - 08:15


Just a willingness to assign the question to the same "hold" bin wherein resides the WMD issue, however temporarily. ;)
That would be fine if I didn&#39;t think that "HOLD" was an acronym for "How Old Lies Die".

OlderThanDirt
06-04-2003, 03:11 PM
There is a deep resentment toward George W. ... and there&#39;s a lot of justification for it, I suppose. There are still a lot of unanswered questions about the 2000 election. But, not even the mainstream media talks about it very much anymore (this may change next year, though). If Lynch&#39;s memory doesn&#39;t return, the issue may raise its head again ... but will probably subside. The news media is fickle for the "newest" shocker and doesn&#39;t have much interest in prolonging old news (unless it&#39;s active/ongoing news).

A few years ago, you might remember that North Korea was threatening peninsular Armageddon. I was following the story very closely until, one day, some guy became a suspect in his wife&#39;s death ... and drove his Ford Bronco into the history books. For the next few weeks, I had to go to alternate news sites to get information because domestic media had only one topic on their minds -- O.J.

j2k4
06-04-2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by clocker+4 June 2003 - 09:34--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 4 June 2003 - 09:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@4 June 2003 - 08:15


Just a willingness to assign the question to the same "hold" bin wherein resides the WMD issue, however temporarily. ;)
That would be fine if I didn&#39;t think that "HOLD" was an acronym for "How Old Lies Die". [/b][/quote]
Clocker, your astounding mental agility leaves me speechless once again.

&#39;I have met punditry, and it is Clocker&#39;. B)

OTD-

Isn&#39;t it amazing how the media steers the content of news, then acts custodially to remind us at future dates of what is or is not historically relevant to current "events"?

I gave O.J. a few points for originality, but that was all; the only significant event after the murder was the criminal verdict, and what it implied about the reality of the state of our legal system and it&#39;s fallability.
The civil contest was, at best, anticlimactic.

The Lynch story aside, it bothers me when my side drops the rhetorical ball, fudges facts, or engages in otherwise sloppy behavior.
A certain amount of "crossed wire syndrome" is inevitable; must it be endemic?

I&#39;ve said this before, too:
I don&#39;t believe the majority of Americans are hinging their opinion re: Iraq on whether or not we find hard evidence (defined as stockpiled, intact and ready-to-be-used) of WMD; this indicates a genuine tolerance for TRUTH.
Instead, we are subjected to this institutionalized imperative of "fact by executive fiat" practiced by ALL administrations.

Having overdosed on it during the Clinton years, I find it especially abhorrent when my guys do it, to whatever extent. :angry: