CBS Attempts to Kiss and Make Up

[KoreBolteR]

dont assume you know me ...I've been against the incurion into iraq since the first war ...I dont take sides based on a few scant sources?

Neither do i, im know a great deal on a lot of wars, only cos im younger than you, dont look at me as if i dont have a clue

is that why 7000 + iraqi civilians died as a result of terrorists using civilians as shield? :rolling:

its partly why, those people died as a result of those terrorist being there and causing them to die. you see, terrorists dont care if they kill civilians, as Coalition Do!

so in essence you're supporting the fact that the US created that situation? ...saddam would have been nothing without western help

not fully True. Saddam Stole all the Oil for food money off the UN. And all off Iraqs Oil money. Saddam robbed iraq of thier oil money and spent it on himself. and i think 5billion given from the UN for the iraqi people, was used for saddams military, a lot of good that did, heh :E

ahhh but that's not profitable now is it?

Explain? :O

 

[Bodacious]

Protesting the US's actions isn't going to solve anything now because if we were to pull out of Iraq there would be many more lives lost.

With that in mind, any further protesting or speaking out about the war is undermining the troops efforts. That means not supporting the troops.

If you think the war is wrong go hire a lawyer and charge Bush with war crimes. There is nothing stopping you except the size of your wallet. Raise some cash. There are 46 million people who don't want bush in office. Get half of them to donate $1 and you got more than ehough to fund your case.

Until you do that, keep protesting how civillians are being treated, that is one of the few arguments left.

 

[CptStern]

Neither do i, im know a great deal on a lot of wars, only cos im younger than you, dont look at me as if i dont have a clue

who says I judge you because of your age? ...if that was true I wouldnt be here as the majority of you are younger than I am

its partly why, those people died as a result of those terrorist being there and causing them to die. you see, terrorists dont care if they kill civilians, as Coalition Do!

you're not listening ..the 7000+ civilians died from coalition bombing ..this happened before may 2003

not fully True. Saddam Stole all the Oil for food money off the UN. And all off Iraqs Oil money. Saddam robbed iraq of thier oil money and spent it on himself. and i think 5billion given from the UN for the iraqi people, was used for saddams military, a lot of good that did, heh :E

I was referring to when saddam was an ally of the west and was actively buying WMD from those who now occupy iraq

Explain? :O

there's a ton of sources on this ...just look to haliburton for a very good example of wartime profiteering

 

[Scoobnfl]

Oh sorry Seinfeld I didn't insult you because of your post, I insulted just because you are a republican http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=47105&highlight=stupid+republicans

and most of all you actually have convinced yourself that fox news is fair and balanced, and are even comparing it to cbs, abc http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/networks/foxnews/foxnews.html

And besides the more left the media is the better, one of the credo's of the leftwing media is objectivity and that is also one of the things that rightwingers like you despise about them, that they insist on bringing real news and not beeing Patriotic, so in essence instead of beeing honest and saying that you are a republican because you're an ass and don't giva a shit about anyone else but yourself like Ann Coultner does you keep pretending you're actually a sane & objective person.

geee are ya butthurt very much?

objectivity? what does that translate into when you speak demoblather? does that mean air a story based on lies and forgery in hopes of swaying the public in an election?

why is fox news so successful? cuz it's not the same old lie filled lieberal rhetoric we've been force fed for the last 40+ years.

 

[Absinthe]

why is fox news so successful? cuz it's not the same old lie filled lieberal rhetoric we've been force fed for the last 40+ years.

Instead, it's lie filled conservative rhetoric we're currently being force fed.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Instead, it's lie filled conservative rhetoric we're currently being force fed.

oh so you're forced to watch fox news? gee you might want to move, maybe to like Canaduh, or do they force you to watch fox news too?

ya'll are just upset because the stranglehold you had on the media no longer exists, oddly there is another side to things and what do ya know people want to hear it.

you don't have to like, ya just gotta accept it. :cheese:

 

[Bodacious]

Fox news is banned in Canada so he would be good there.

No one forces you to pay your cable bill or change channels to fox news. You aren't being force fed anything.

 

[Absinthe]

ya'll are just upset because the stranglehold you had on the media no longer exists, oddly there is another side to things and what do ya know people want to hear it.

Oh, that's just ingenious.

LET'S CREATE A RADICALLY CONSERVATIVE NEWS CHANNEL JUST TO SPITE THOSE LIBERAL ****ERS.

...instead of actually creating a news agency that really is "fair and balanced". Let's just throw progression to the birds and remain in the mudslinging contest that divides, decieves, and confuses the nation.

There may have been a liberal slant before, but Fox's bias is so obvious it's ridiculous.

ADDED: While I may not be force fed Fox News, it's sensationalist nature is enough to captivate and delude much of the country. Different method, same damn result.

http://www.turnoffyourtv.com/networks/foxnews/foxnews.html

But you don't care, do you?

 

[Scoobnfl]

Oh, that's just ingenious.

taht's laughable

But you don't care, do you?

not really.

If fox is the joke of the industry, why are the other networks crying? Why does CBS have to resort to fabricating stories? Why can't the other networks stick to reporting news without inserting their liberal bias into every single ****ing story they can? Why can't any of the other news station wish "merry christmas" on Christmas day? The other networks are the joke if you ask me, so much so that they advertise on Fox news in hopes of getting some of their lost viewers back.

Face it, fox found a giant niche that MSM created and now they're exploiting it. so ****ing be it. maybe when things even out again, and they will the lefties will learn to have left their leftist crap out of their stories.

 

[CptStern]

geee are ya butthurt very much?

objectivity? what does that translate into when you speak demoblather? does that mean air a story based on lies and forgery in hopes of swaying the public in an election?

why is fox news so successful? cuz it's not the same old lie filled lieberal rhetoric we've been force fed for the last 40+ years.

fox"news" objective? hahahhahahahha what a croc!

here look at this:

an example of fox"news" propaganda at work

the same story on another network:

from the very next day


objectivity my ass

 

[Bodacious]

LOL @ Stern.

Your link to fox news says:

The Washington Post reported...

So it isn't eve Fox's story.

You lose.

 

[CptStern]

who the **** cares? they still ran the story didnt they? cnn was far more cautious ...why's that? because early medical reports said there was nothing that could substantiate that she was in a firefight ...it's called investigative journalism ..something fox"news" is sorely lacking

 

[Scoobnfl]

fox"news" objective? hahahhahahahha what a croc!

here look at this:

an example of fox"news" propaganda at work

blind hate and rage is a bitch



E-MAIL STORY PRINTER FRIENDLY FOXFAN CENTRAL
Report: Lynch Was Shot, Stabbed in Fierce Struggle With Iraqi Captors
Thursday, April 03, 2003

STORIES BACKGROUND
•Pfc. Jessica Lynch's Family Celebrates Her Rescue•Agonizing Wait for Relatives of Other POWs •POW Jessica Lynch Rescued by U.S. Forces in Iraq
LANDSTUHL, Germany — Spirited but hungry, rescued prisoner of war Pfc. Jessica Lynch arrived in Germany for treatment of two broken legs and bullet wounds reportedly suffered in a fierce gun battle she waged against her Iraqi captors.

The Washington Post reported Thursday that the 19-year-old Army supply clerk shot several Iraqi soldiers during the March 23 ambush that resulted in her capture. She kept firing even after she had several gunshot wounds, finally running out of ammunition, the newspaper said, citing unidentified U.S. officials.

"She was fighting to the death," the Post quoted an official as saying. "She did not want to be taken alive."

Pentagon officials and family members contacted late Wednesday declined comment on the report.

Lynch was rescued from an Iraqi hospital in a daring nighttime raid Tuesday by U.S. commandos acting on a CIA tip.

The former POW left Iraq on a stretcher with an American flag folded across her chest, and arrived at a U.S. air base in Germany late Wednesday for treatment at an American military medical center.

From Germany, she spoke with her family at their home in Palestine, W.Va., in a 15-minute telephone call.

 

[Absinthe]

If fox is the joke of the industry, why are the other networks crying?

Maybe because they don't like it when a lying self-righteous punk becomes a popular idol?

Why does CBS have to resort to fabricating stories?

Don't care for CBS either.

Why can't the other networks stick to reporting news without inserting their liberal bias into every single ****ing story they can?

Like?

Why can't any of the other news station wish "merry christmas" on Christmas day? The other networks are the joke if you ask me, so much so that they advertise on Fox news in hopes of getting some of their lost viewers back.

Wow. Those are really compelling arguments. Almost as compelling as your Osama/Saudi theory.

Face it, fox found a giant niche that MSM created and now they're exploiting it. so ****ing be it. maybe when things even out again, and they will the lefties will learn to have left their leftist crap out of their stories.

Please point out the oh-so-overbearing liberal bias.

 

[Absinthe]

Any way, I think dirty liberal news programming like the Communist News Network will live.

http://www.business-journal.com/LateApril04/FOXvsCNN.html

 

[Bodacious]

who the **** cares? they still ran the story didnt they? cnn was far more cautious ...why's that? because early medical reports said there was nothing that could substantiate that she was in a firefight ...it's called investigative journalism ..something fox"news" is sorely lacking

You care obviously, otherwise you wouldn't be so quick to judge fox news for running a story that someone else ran first.

 

[Scoobnfl]

Please point out the oh-so-overbearing liberal bias.

you're a bleeding heart lieberal you wouldn't see it.

it also takes common sense.

and the Osama and why were most of the hijackers Saudi, that's the real reason, sorry that you're too ignorant to realize it.

Osama wants to sack the royal family, and create a big islamofascist republic of all muslim nations, he knows that won't happen from within, the only option is to seek to do it by outside forces.

 

[Absinthe]

you're a bleeding heart lieberal you wouldn't see it.

:thumbs:

it also takes common sense.

OMG TEHN PLS EDUMUCATE MEH

and the Osama and why were most of the hijackers Saudi, that's the real reason, sorry that you're too ignorant to realize it.

Yeah, it's a shame I'm too ignorant to embrace a delusional fantasy as fact.

Osama wants to sack the royal family, and create a big islamofascist republic of all muslim nations, he knows that won't happen from within, the only option is to seek to do it by outside forces.

See, that's great and everything. But it doesn't add any more credibility to your idea.

 

[el Chi]

Scoobnfl, you're one of the more - how to put this - "interesting" people to merrily wander into the hell-hole of fabulousness that is the Politics forum. So welcome. I suppose.

But I'm with Absinthe, I'm afraid: You're talking utter bollocks.

 

[seinfeldrules]

fox"news" objective? hahahhahahahha what a croc!

here look at this:

an example of fox"news" propaganda at work

the same story on another network:

from the very next day


objectivity my ass

Stern if you searched enough in CNN land you would find a very similar story.

 

[seinfeldrules]

so you'll not put your money where your mouth is and serve in the military? in your country's time of need? for shame

I'm serving my country later in life. Is it just me, or do you have ADD and cannot finish reading a line?

ummmmmmm no, at this point 1984 saddam had already slaughters 10's of thousands of kurds. But do go on ...I'd like to see how you can possibly justify the US' support of saddam using WMD

Do some research bud. His main campaign began in 1988. Research the Anfal campaign.

I'd like to see your info, because no action was taken against saddam ..in fact the US stepped up their support

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s88/6

Resolution 612 (1988)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2812th meeting
on 9 May 1988

The Security Council,

Having considered the report of 25 April 1988 (S/19823) of the
Mission dispatched by the Secretary-General to investigate allegations
of the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic
Republic of Iran and Iraq,

Dismayed by the Mission's conclusions that chemical weapons
continue to be used in the conflict and that their use has been on an
even more intensive scale than before,

1. Affirms the urgent necessity of strict observance of the
Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating,
Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare
signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925;

2. Condemns vigorously the continued use of chemical weapons in
the conflict between Iran and Iraq contrary to the obligations under
the Geneva Protocol;

3. Expects both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical
weapons in accordance with their obligations under the Geneva Protocol;

4. Calls upon all States to continue to apply or to establish
strict control of the export to the parties to the conflict of chemical
products serving for the production of chemical weapons;

5. Decides to remain seized of the matter and expresses its
determination to review the implementation of this resolution.

642 (29 September 1989): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
631 (8 February 1989): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
620 (26 August 1988): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
619 (9 August 1988): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
612 (9 May 1988): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
598 (20 July 1987): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
588 (8 October 1986): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
582 (24 February 1986): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
540 (31 October 1983): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
522 (4 October 1982): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
514 (12 July 1982): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).

RESOLUTION 540 (1983)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2493rd meeting
on 31 October 1983

The Security Council,

Having considered again the question entitled "The situation between Iran
and Iraq",

Recalling its relevant resolutions and statements which, inter alia, call
for a comprehensive cease-fire and an end to all military operations between
the parties,

Recalling the report of the Secretary-General of 20 June 1983 (S/15834)
on the mission appointed by him to inspect civilian areas in Iran and Iraq
which have been subject to military attacks, and expressing its appreciation
to the Secretary- General for presenting a factual, balanced and objective
account,

Also noting with appreciation and encouragement the assistance and
co-operation given to the Secretary-General's mission by the Governments of
Iran and Iraq,

Deploring once again the conflict between the two countries, resulting in
heavy losses of civilian lives and extensive damage caused to cities, property
and economic infrastructures,

Affirming the desirability of an objective examination of the causes of
the war,

1. Requests the Secretary-General to continue his mediation efforts
with the parties concerned, with a view to achieving a comprehensive, just and
honourable settlement acceptable to both sides;

2. Condemns all violations of international humanitarian law, in
particular, the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 in all their
aspects, and calls for the immediate cessation of all military operations
against civilian targets, including city and residential areas;

3. Affirms the right of free navigation and commerce in international
waters, calls on all States to respect this right and also calls upon the
belligerents to cease immediately all hostilities in the region of the Gulf,
including all sea-lanes, navigable waterways, harbour works, terminals,
offshore installations and all ports with direct or indirect access to the
sea, and to respect the integrity of the other littoral States;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to consult with the parties
concerning ways to sustain and verify the cessation of hostilities, including
the possible dispatch of United Nations observers, and to submit a report to
the Council on the results of these consultations;

5. Calls upon both parties to refrain from any action that may endanger
peace and security as well as marine life in the region of the Gulf;

6. Calls once more upon all other States to exercise the utmost
restraint and to refrain from any act which may lead to a further escalation
and widening of the conflict and, thus, to facilitate the implementation of
the present resolution;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to consult with the parties regarding
immediate and effective implementation of this resolution.

who opposed it? Not I ..I opposed the US invasion of Iraq, I opposed the crippling sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of children ..I stood up for what was right

We didnt invade Iraq. And why would you protest the coalition invading Iraq so the bloodshed could have ended 10+ years ahead of time. If you were against the crippling sanctions then maybe you should have protested Saddam squandering 10+billion dollars in aid. Or spending all the money he had on himself.

 

[CptStern]

I'm serving my country later in life. Is it just me, or do you have ADD and cannot finish reading a line?

but your country needs you now

Do some research bud. His main campaign began in 1988. Research the Anfal campaign.

really? sooo saddam didnt use WMD prior to 88? ..the year the war between Iraq and iran was over?

What about after that date ....hmmm this is dated 1994! hey guess what? the US was still selling saddam WMD even during the sanctions

"On February 9, 1994, Chairman Donald W. Riegle, Jr. disclosed on the U.S. Senate floor that the U.S. government actually licensed the export of deadly microorganisms to Iraq. It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and recovered from the Iraqi biological warfare program. "

source

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0818-02.htm

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0208/S00158.htm

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/nation/4185241.htm?1c

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0406g.asp

 

[seinfeldrules]

but your country needs you now

I'm only 17 now... Besides, I will fill a much larger role in an attempt to revitalize a stagnant intelligence community. Bringing common sense back into the world.

really? sooo saddam didnt use WMD prior to 88? ..the year the war between Iraq and iran was over?

540 (31 October 1983): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
522 (4 October 1982): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).
514 (12 July 1982): Iraq - Islamic Republic of Iran (PDF).

RESOLUTION 540 (1983)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2493rd meeting
on 31 October 1983

The Security Council,

Having considered again the question entitled "The situation between Iran
and Iraq",

Recalling its relevant resolutions and statements which, inter alia, call
for a comprehensive cease-fire and an end to all military operations between
the parties,

Recalling the report of the Secretary-General of 20 June 1983 (S/15834)
on the mission appointed by him to inspect civilian areas in Iran and Iraq
which have been subject to military attacks, and expressing its appreciation
to the Secretary- General for presenting a factual, balanced and objective
account,

Also noting with appreciation and encouragement the assistance and
co-operation given to the Secretary-General's mission by the Governments of
Iran and Iraq,

Deploring once again the conflict between the two countries, resulting in
heavy losses of civilian lives and extensive damage caused to cities, property
and economic infrastructures,

Affirming the desirability of an objective examination of the causes of
the war,

1. Requests the Secretary-General to continue his mediation efforts
with the parties concerned, with a view to achieving a comprehensive, just and
honourable settlement acceptable to both sides;

2. Condemns all violations of international humanitarian law, in
particular, the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 in all their
aspects, and calls for the immediate cessation of all military operations
against civilian targets, including city and residential areas;

3. Affirms the right of free navigation and commerce in international
waters, calls on all States to respect this right and also calls upon the
belligerents to cease immediately all hostilities in the region of the Gulf,
including all sea-lanes, navigable waterways, harbour works, terminals,
offshore installations and all ports with direct or indirect access to the
sea, and to respect the integrity of the other littoral States;

4. Requests the Secretary-General to consult with the parties
concerning ways to sustain and verify the cessation of hostilities, including
the possible dispatch of United Nations observers, and to submit a report to
the Council on the results of these consultations;

5. Calls upon both parties to refrain from any action that may endanger
peace and security as well as marine life in the region of the Gulf;

6. Calls once more upon all other States to exercise the utmost
restraint and to refrain from any act which may lead to a further escalation
and widening of the conflict and, thus, to facilitate the implementation of
the present resolution;

7. Requests the Secretary-General to consult with the parties regarding
immediate and effective implementation of this resolution.

Comments on Anfal?
Comments on this "We didnt invade Iraq. And why would you protest the coalition invading Iraq so the bloodshed could have ended 10+ years ahead of time. If you were against the crippling sanctions then maybe you should have protested Saddam squandering 10+billion dollars in aid. Or spending all the money he had on himself."

PS You sorely misinterpreted that quote. It doesnt actually reveal when they were exported. Just because the quote was in 1994 doesnt mean it actually took place in 1994 :rolling:

Then add to this your sources. The first one is quite obviously biased. Progressivedreams.org or whatever. The second article was from a newspaper entitled "BY NORM DIXON
Green Left Weekly - Australia's Radical Newspaper

Some books offered on the last site include
"The Tyranny of Gun Control (1998)
The Failure of America’s Foreign Wars (1996)
The Case for Free Trade and Open Immigration (1995)"

Some incredible commentary from the month of Nov. in 2004.

"U.S. Regime Change, Torture, and Murder in Chile
by Jacob G. Hornberger


A Good Way to Spend Thanksgiving?
by Sheldon Richman


What Did We Do to Deserve Condoleezza Rice?
by Sheldon Richman


A Reply to a Gun Control Critic
by Scott McPherson


Seeing and Not Seeing
by Scott McPherson


Spreading the Word
by Bart Frazier


Submit or Die: The Conquest of Falluja
by Jacob G. Hornberger


Take the Constitution Seriously in the Second Term
by Sheldon Richman


I’m Free Because I Voted, Right?
by Jacob G. Hornberger "
"

Its astounding that you refuse to listen to Dave Kopel, but have the guts to post stuff like this? You call FOXNEWS the most biased media outlet ever, then post this?

 

[Scoobnfl]

What about after that date ....hmmm this is dated 1994! hey guess what? the US was still selling saddam WMD even during the sanctions

under Clinton? Is that your suggestion, that under clintons administration we were violating international law and selling Iraq WMD?

 

[CptStern]

I'm only 17 now... Besides, I will fill a much larger role in an attempt to revitalize a stagnant intelligence community. Bringing common sense back into the world.

sorry but I dont think you'd be an asset to the profession ...besides what better way to work up to that position than doing a tour of duty with the military ...isnt it mandatory? or at least expected?

Comments on Anfal?

what's to comment on? I'm not disputing it happened in fact I've said time and again that saddam should be tried in an international court for those very reasons

Comments on this "We didnt invade Iraq.

well you bombed the crap outta bagdad including targets that are traditonally targeted pre-invasion

And why would you protest the coalition invading Iraq so the bloodshed could have ended 10+ years ahead of time.

as if I or anybody else knew that the US would impose sanctions that would cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents. How exactly did you expect me to foresee the future? The protest itself was a world peace march, there were just as many calls for saddam to leave kuwait as there were calls for america to cease aggressions

If you were against the crippling sanctions then maybe you should have protested Saddam squandering 10+billion dollars in aid. Or spending all the money he had on himself."

that wasnt known till years later ..besides he's a murderous tyrant ..I expect him to do things like that ...what I dont expect is a western country knowingly causing the deaths iof hundreds of thousands of innocent children

PS You sorely misinterpreted that quote. It doesnt actually reveal when they were exported. Just because the quote was in 1994 doesnt mean it actually took place in 1994 :rolling:

actually you're right ...but if you had read a little further you'd see that the reports talks about contracts that were filled in 1992

Then add to this your sources. The first one is quite obviously biased. Progressivedreams.org or whatever.

show me evidence to the contrary

The second article was from a newspaper entitled "BY NORM DIXON
.......

admittedly I did pick the first few links I found without looking at them ...but in my defense I provided more than just one source

Its astounding that you refuse to listen to Dave Kopel, but have the guts to post stuff like this? You call FOXNEWS the most biased media outlet ever, then post this?

ah but when it's your only source it tends to make you look one-sided

under Clinton? Is that your suggestion, that under clintons administration we were violating international law and selling Iraq WMD?

I'm non-partisan, I dont care which administration is responsible ...but if it makes you feel any better the bulk of iraq's purchases of wmd were under reagan's administration ..still doesnt neutralize the stigma of arming and supporting the enemy

 

[seinfeldrules]

sorry but I dont think you'd be an asset to the profession ...besides what better way to work up to that position than doing a tour of duty with the military ...isnt it mandatory? or at least expected?

They prefer a masters degree actually. Military experience could hinder that. Like the cheap shot too, really shows maturity...

well you bombed the crap outta bagdad including targets that are traditonally targeted pre-invasion

Did we invade? No. Should we of? Yes.

How exactly did you expect me to foresee the future?

Saddam butchers people. Saddam no stop butchering people. Very simple to see future.

admittedly I did pick the first few links I found without looking at them ...but in my defense I provided more than just one source

Yes and they were all equally as biased.

show me evidence to the contrary

Its title does the job for me.

ah but when it's your only source it tends to make you look one-sided

When it is attacking another extremist like Michael Moore it is needed. He did such a fine job breaking down the movie there is no need to expound upon his points. I feel that including 4+ extremist links is more one-sided then including one...

 

[Absinthe]

EDIT: Never mind.

 

[CptStern]

They prefer a masters degree actually. Military experience could hinder that. Like the cheap shot too, really shows maturity...

it's not a cheap shot, I just dont think you're all that objective ..which would probably be a great hinderance in an intelligence capacity

Did we invade? No. Should we of? Yes.

why?

Saddam butchers people. Saddam no stop butchering people. Very simple to see future.

:upstare: no ...I didnt foresee that 500,000+ children would die as a result of the sanctions on Iraq ...but then again I didnt find the Iraq water treatment assessment files till much later

Yes and they were all equally as biased.

no more so then the so called "mainstream" media ..at least the independents dont have share holders to answer to

When it is attacking another extremist like Michael Moore it is needed. He did such a fine job breaking down the movie there is no need to expound upon his points. I feel that including 4+ extremist links is more one-sided then including one...

hmmmm moore an extremist? then what does that make uber gun-advocate kopel? a right wing nutjob? btw moore is targeting the healthcare system for his next documentary ..I'm sure you'll dismiss it as un-american and misleading while glossing over the more important issues presented in the moivie just like you do with f911

personally i dont believe you've seen F911 so I dont think you're in a position to comment on it

 

[seinfeldrules]

it's not a cheap shot, I just dont think you're all that objective ..which would probably be a great hinderance in an intelligence capacity

How is gathering intelligence biased one way or another? If I was advising, then it may include bias, but I know how to leave that at the door when I enter a workplace.

why?

To prevent thousands of more civilians from being executed by Saddam.

no ...I didnt foresee that 500,000+ children would die as a result of the sanctions on Iraq .

If another leader had been in place to spend the 10 billion dollars in aid then none of this would have happened.

no more so then the so called "mainstream" media ..at least the independents dont have share holders to answer to

The media is left leaning, maybe not enough for your taste, but it is. Just because it doesnt have the word 'progressive' in its title doesnt mean it isnt objective.

hmmmm moore an extremist?

Yes, he is willing to accomplish his 'goal', by using very extreme mehtods. Such methods have been posted, yet widely ignored by yourself and other liberals.

then what does that make uber gun-advocate kopel? a right wing nutjob?

It makes him Moore's opposite. Water to fire.

btw moore is targeting the healthcare system for his next documentary

Good for him, I bet it will include even moore left leaning bias.

personally i dont believe you've seen F911 so I dont think you're in a position to comment on it

I have seen it, a few months back. Still have it saved on my computer.