Printable View
I've never thought of Friedman as a person who spins anything. He's about the most moderate thinker I can think of when it comes to Middle Eastern issues.Quote:
clocker wrote:
I still don't see what the spin/cant/believability of the Times has to do with an "opinion" published therein.
Quote:
The real weapons that threaten us are the growing number of angry, humiliated young Arabs and Muslims, who are produced by failed or failing Arab states — young people who hate America more than they love life.
Unfortunately there's a heck of alot more of those now since the war than there ever used to be. If things don't improve in Iraq quickly, people there WILL look back on "the good old days when Saddam was in charge". People have short memories, and sometimes unless you're very careful, no amount of facts or statistics can match popular belief.
Now that the war is over, the peace still needs to be won, or it's curtains for us all. :(
This is fantastic!Quote:
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@4 June 2003 - 14:23
Because our intelligence people discovered that Saddam Hussein may have been in possession of a (ahem) "Stargate" ... and we wanted it.
Here are the particulars on this bizarre theory.
I love this! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
it either shows incredible imagination or incredible paranoia....
Ah,j2, this is exactly what I was talking about.Quote:
Originally posted by clocker+4 June 2003 - 09:27--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 4 June 2003 - 09:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin--j2k4@4 June 2003 - 08:21
Some would say of the N.Y. Times "That's not ink, it's tar!"
They are occasionally correct. The Times built it's reputation on factual accuracy, not the cant or quality of it's SPIN.
The column is obviously a "opinion" piece and questioning the spin of the publisher doesn't really address the validity of the opinion expressed, does it?[/b][/quote]
Point taken.
I was speaking more in terms of the overall flavor of their reportage, i.e., the obvious glee with which the Times reported that graduates at St. Joseph's University walked out of their commencement to protest a speech by Republican Senator Rick Santorum, but gave no mention whatsoever to the fact their own prize reporter, Chris Hedges, was booed off the stage and had his microphone cut off while addressing the graduating class at Rockford College in Illinois, as he attempted to give his anti-war, anti-U.S. views an airing before what he no doubt assumed would be a sympathetic crowd.
He was later quoted as saying "I didn't expect that."
This was noted neither on the Times' editorial page nor anywhere else in the paper.
YOUR point, however, stands. ;)
OTD-
Friedman IS a joy to read.
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
the guardian
George Wright
Wednesday June 4, 2003
Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war. The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/...,970334,00.html
Donald Rumsfeld has wanted to invade Iraq for years...publicly...for the oil.
Its only after a 'reason' was decided that he stopped wanting to go in for the oil...publicly.
For j2k4,
The Gardian is a 'facts' newspaper, and doesnt not lean towards Left or Right (Middle of the Road) however it does point out that its stolen the story from a German newspaper, and i have no idea of what the reputation of the German paper is.
I do know they wouldnt steal a story from a Tabloid though.... ;)
... and the paragraph directly following that reads:Quote:
myfiles3000 quoted the British newspaper:
Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil
the guardian
George Wright
Wednesday June 4, 2003
Oil was the main reason for military action against Iraq, a leading White House hawk has claimed, confirming the worst fears of those opposed to the US-led war. The US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz - who has already undermined Tony Blair's position over weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by describing them as a "bureaucratic" excuse for war - has now gone further by claiming the real motive was that Iraq is "swimming" in oil.
The latest comments were made by Mr Wolfowitz in an address to delegates at an Asian security summit in Singapore at the weekend, and reported today by German newspapers Der Tagesspiegel and Die Welt.
So, the Guardian is reporting out-of-context bits from a 2nd-hand news source, originating from newspapers in a country that was hostile to US actions in Iraq. Also notice that, at the bottom of this article's webpage is a link to "Full text of speeches and documents." And clicking on that link, the first thing you notice is the absence of full text of Wolfowitz's speech. In a Google search, I looked for that full text but could not find it.
Oil is undoubtedly a very important reason why we went into Iraq. But I think that distilling our "entire" reason for going into Iraq to oil alone is far too simplistic. I'm more inclined to believe Friedman's take on the reasoning we used, quote, "But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government — and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen — got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about."
Actually, I thought it was scary. Not scary because I believe this nonsense, but scary because this guy (1) really believes it, and (2) is a tenured professor at American University in Washington, DC. Impressionable young students are exposed to this nonsense, championed by someone with "credentials." That's scary.Quote:
barbarossa wrote:
This is fantastic!Quote:
(OlderThanDirt @ 4 June 2003 - 14:23)
Because our intelligence people discovered that Saddam Hussein may have been in possession of a (ahem) "Stargate" ... and we wanted it.
Here are the particulars on this bizarre theory.
The funny part is that George Noory mentioned (I assume to give some credence to the man) that every time he called intelligence people to ask about this possibility, they hung up on him ... as if this implied he'd stumbled onto a secret. More likely is that these intelligence people hung up on him to guarantee him equal treatment -- with other callers who, perhaps, suggested our real reason for entering Iraq was because Saddam Hussein had taken the Easter Bunny hostage :lol: .
Yes indeedy it still does.Quote:
Originally posted by j2k4@4 June 2003 - 11:13
YOUR point, however, stands. ;)
And believe me, I really admire the dance you've done all around it. ;)
give.me.a.break.Quote:
Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@4 June 2003 - 21:36
So, the Guardian is reporting out-of-context bits from a 2nd-hand news source, originating from newspapers in a country that was hostile to US actions in Iraq.