Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

CBS dancing to Republican tune
Toronto Star ^ | Nov. 9, 2003 | ANTONIA ZERBISIAS

Posted on 11/10/2003 11:11:34 AM PST by holymoly

CBS dancing to Republican tune

ANTONIA ZERBISIAS

I'm thinking of having the above photo retaken in order to show the drywall embedded in my forehead. It's a wonder I stopped bashing my head long enough to eke out this column.

It's been that kind of week. First, there was CBS's dumping of its sweeps period biopic The Reagans after a right wing-organized backlash, and then, at Thursday's Canadian Journalists For Free Expression awards dinner, I got into a surreal argument with a TV network foreign affairs producer who made the outrageous claim that the U.S. never lied about its motives for attacking Iraq.

The two events are related because it has been my experience in the past two years that, every time you raise an issue that makes those on the right uncomfortable, they change the subject and argue about something else.

And so, in making his case about how the Bushies made their case for killing thousands of people in Iraq, my TV foreign affairs colleague kept shifting the debate the way a desert wind shifts the sands. No, the White House never said the U.S. was in imminent danger of attack by nuke-yule-er weapons wielded by terrorists, he said. It merely "sold'' the war wrong. No, President George W. Bush never mentioned that bit about 45 minutes to annihilation. That was Tony Blair. And so on.

As for The Reagans which, like any docudrama, likely boasts as much drama as doc, it was denounced by one writer for the Wall Street Journal as a "cartoon plot" best summarized as "Mommie Dearest Manipulates President Fuddy Duddy." Meanwhile the paper's deputy editorial page editor Daniel Henninger fulminated over how the now Alzheimer's-afflicted president was played by James Brolin, who is guilty of being "partner of America's most invested Republican hater," Barbra Streisand. Almost as bad was hiring an Australian actress — Emmy-winning Judy Davis — to be former First Lady Nancy Davis Reagan who, it shall be remembered, was indeed called "Mommy" by her husband.

Naturally, the pro-Reagans, anti-Reagans forces dragged out their favourite burning cross: the sins of the so-called liberal media. The script here is that, when the media report news that the right doesn't like, its defenders counterattack by screaming left-wing bias rather than admit that Bush could be a big fat liar. Last week, one of my favourite cartoonists Tom Toles illustrated this brilliantly by showing a CBS announcer saying the network won't be airing The Reagans "because it's full of inaccuracies, hostile in tone and completely misleading" and then, looking off camera, asking, "What do we do about this Bush press conference?''

Oh the horror, the horror, of allowing travesties of truth, justice and good taste on the corporate-controlled supposed public airwaves. Never mind that Viacom, which owns CBS, is awaiting new broadcast rules that will allow it to expand its considerable media dominion. So duh! It's going to do what the Republicans want it to do.

But the Ronald Reagan-loving critics overlook that, claiming victory over the liberal media, which had merely set out to trash their beloved Gipper and, among other things, his appalling record on AIDS. Even though these critics never saw the show, and even though Reagan never mentioned AIDS for the first six years of his administration. Anyway, do they honestly believe that CBS, which owns the older, more conservative demographic, would risk a single eyeball with a smear job?

So now The Reagans has been offloaded to CBS's smaller cable sister network Showtime. My guess is that Showtime, which says it will follow the presentation with a panel discussion, never runs the now heavily edited and re-edited miniseries.

Meanwhile, the late great Edward R. Murrow who, along with his producer Fred Friendly and CBS, helped bring down Commie-hunter Joseph McCarthy, spins in his grave.

If that's not enough irony for you, consider this: President Ronald Reagan was the guy who, in 1987, vetoed legislation, passed by both the U.S. Congress and the Senate, that would have entrenched the "Fairness Doctrine.'' As a president who was big on keeping government out of the business of business, he did not see the value in a law that would have forced broadcasters to present balanced accounts of controversial issues.

Hmmm ...

This is not to say that the Fairness Doctrine was without problems from a freedom of the press standpoint. But abolishing it led to even more trouble in television land, including the creation of entire "news" networks that spew lots of opinion and little fact.

The Reagans was never meant to be a news program. It was designed as drama, and cheesy drama at that. But its critics seem to be saying that most Americans can't discern between TV fiction and news.

Considering the record lately, they could be right.


TOPICS: Canada; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aids; antiamericanism; antibush; barfalert; boycott; boycottviacom; bushbashing; canada; cbs; cheeseandwhine; homosexual; homosexualagenda; mediabias; nowhiningzone; ratherbiased; reaganbashing; ronaldreagan; seebs; showtime; smarmyliberal; technicoloryawn; thereagans; viacom; viacommie; waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
My apologies if this has already been posted, nothing turned up in a search.
1 posted on 11/10/2003 11:11:35 AM PST by holymoly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: holymoly
My apologies if this has already been posted, nothing turned up in a search.

That's OK. There was nothing to the article either.

2 posted on 11/10/2003 11:14:52 AM PST by theDentist (Liberals can sugarcoat sh** all they want. I'm not biting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

Antonia sure looks butch, doesn't she?!

3 posted on 11/10/2003 11:15:25 AM PST by Revolting cat! (Far out, man!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
This man's problem is not drywall embedded in his forehead. His problem is the concrete between his ears.
4 posted on 11/10/2003 11:16:11 AM PST by WorkingClassFilth (DEFUND NPR & PBS - THE AMERICAN PRAVDA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
The Reagans were never menat to be a news program.
...so it's alright if they lie about what Reagan said, giving him a bad image that he doesn't deserve. News flash you f!@#$%^ idiot... the National Enquirer isn't meant to be a realistic news source, but they get sued for libel.
5 posted on 11/10/2003 11:16:38 AM PST by WinOne4TheGipper (Using Occam's Razor to shave the hairy armpits of liberal feminists....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: theDentist
That's OK. There was nothing to the article either.

Well, I thought it a good example of just how irrational the left can be (is?).
7 posted on 11/10/2003 11:17:02 AM PST by holymoly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

8 posted on 11/10/2003 11:17:21 AM PST by Revolting cat! (Far out, man!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
What the...? That ain't the picture they had next to the article!
Oh well.
9 posted on 11/10/2003 11:19:12 AM PST by holymoly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: holymoly; GOPJ; Pharmboy; reformed_democrat; RatherBiased.com; nopardons; Tamsey; Miss Marple; ...
Can you imagine an American newspaper, even one in a city right across the Canadian border, running an 800-word diatribe about a Canadian network canceling a TV movie about Brian Mulroney due to its being quite possibly libelous?

Too many Canadians - especially the writers of the Toronto Star, arguably one of the most liberal papers in that country - have an extremely unhealthy obsession with the United States. Why the hell should they care what an American network decides to do about a miniseries about an American president?

Oh yeah, because Reagan's a conservative and all TV networks everywhere have a sworn duty to air nothing but far-left propaganda hit pieces 24/7. Right.


This is the Mainstream Media Shenanigans ping list. Please freepmail me to be added or dropped.
Please note this is a medium- to high-volume list.
Please feel free to ping me if you come across a thread you would think worthy of this ping list. I can't catch them all!


10 posted on 11/10/2003 11:19:36 AM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
The script here is that, when the media report news that the right doesn't like, its defenders counterattack by screaming left-wing bias rather than admit that Bush could be a big fat liar. Last week, one of my favourite cartoonists Tom Toles illustrated this brilliantly by showing a CBS announcer saying the network won't be airing The Reagans "because it's full of inaccuracies, hostile in tone and completely misleading" and then, looking off camera, asking, "What do we do about this Bush press conference?''

Up yours, Antonia. The media has a permanent left-wing bias, not just when it suits the right, and, further, I defy you to find one instance of an outright lie told by the President.

11 posted on 11/10/2003 11:19:56 AM PST by CaptRon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
... the late great Edward R. Murrow who, along with his producer Fred Friendly and CBS, helped bring down Commie-hunter Joseph McCarthy

CBS - fighting democracy for the last half century (at least).
12 posted on 11/10/2003 11:20:00 AM PST by oh8eleven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
I'm waiting for the major network docudrama of 'Xlowntoon: the Early Years' featuring his stepfathers, Juanita Broaddrick, cocaine habit, etc.
13 posted on 11/10/2003 11:20:50 AM PST by Post Toasties
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
Apparently this person agrees with Anti-President Al Gore that CBS/Viacom has a 1st Amendment right to our wallets.
14 posted on 11/10/2003 11:21:43 AM PST by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
But abolishing it [the Fairness Doctrine] led to even more trouble in television land, including the creation of entire "news" networks that spew lots of opinion and little fact.

You see, according to our intrepid author, prior to 1987 there was no bias in television news. It's only emerged since then . . .

15 posted on 11/10/2003 11:22:26 AM PST by Numbers Guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
I'm thinking of having the above photo retaken in order to show the drywall embedded in my forehead. It's a wonder I stopped bashing my head long enough to eke out this column.

This pretty much explains the left-wing mind-set.

16 posted on 11/10/2003 11:24:35 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Post Toasties
I am waiting for the movie on how Clinton converted the Whitehouse into a whorehouse. It could be spiced up considerably with lies to make it more interesting...who would object?
17 posted on 11/10/2003 11:27:00 AM PST by Voltage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
This is not to say that the Fairness Doctrine was without problems from a freedom of the press standpoint. But abolishing it led to even more trouble in television land, including the creation of entire "news" networks that spew lots of opinion and little fact.

I hate to break it to him (or her, depending on which picture above is correct), but the Fairness Doctrine only applied to BROADCAST television: TV and radio stations. It would not have prevented the launch of Fox News Channel (the only network the jackass author of this article could possibly have been talking about ... and lying about.

And, of course, it never stopped the broadcast news media from being overtly liberal all those years anyway. The only place it was ever really enforced was on talk radio, where opinion was clearly labeled as opinion. As long as you claimed to be "impartial news", you were left alone, no matter how partial you actually were.

Which I guess is my nice way of saying STFU, Canadians, when you don't have a damn clue what you're talking about.

18 posted on 11/10/2003 11:27:49 AM PST by Timesink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
"CBS dancing to Republican tune"

More like the "perp walk" as the miscreant is being hauled into the station to be booked....

Nothing will come of the charges, as they will be dismissed by the liberal media acting on behalf of the "court of public opinion", but the reputation continues to build.
19 posted on 11/10/2003 11:29:03 AM PST by alloysteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
= ?

Hmmm...looks like someone needs to rethink their hormone treatment.

20 posted on 11/10/2003 11:29:08 AM PST by Jonah Hex (If a dog started to salivate, would Pavlov ring a bell?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
...helped bring down Commie-hunter Joseph McCarthy...

Revealing slip. He derides McCarthy only because he was a "Commie-hunter." Oh, then there were Commies, were there? In the State Department?

McCarthy is supposed to be reviled for "ruining innocent lives". He must not have gotten the memo.

21 posted on 11/10/2003 11:32:52 AM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
Er, she must not have gotten the memo. The butch photo tripped me up.
22 posted on 11/10/2003 11:33:59 AM PST by Plutarch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
You're correct. I shoulda entered a smilie or a {/sarcasm}
23 posted on 11/10/2003 11:37:39 AM PST by theDentist (Liberals can sugarcoat sh** all they want. I'm not biting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
"...how the Bushies made their case for killing thousands of people in Iraq..."

It never ceases to amaze me how the LEFT uses the same pithy statements at the same time as if scripted. This seems to be the latest. I've noticed this in several articles today in different variations. It's like they're all listening to the Wizard of Oz.

24 posted on 11/10/2003 11:38:26 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
"I got into a surreal argument with a TV network foreign affairs producer who made the outrageous claim that the U.S. never lied about its motives for attacking Iraq."

Don't you love it how morons like this claim that anyone who doesn't take their side in a controversial charge, in which people don't buy the leftist media line, are "surreal" and "outrageous"? According to this guy, half the U.S. population is "surreal" and "outrageous". The arrogance is mind-blowing.

Qwinn
25 posted on 11/10/2003 11:43:24 AM PST by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
Jimmy Carter couldn't pronounce nuclear either and he was a nuclear physicist.
26 posted on 11/10/2003 11:46:41 AM PST by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
But the Ronald Reagan-loving critics overlook that, claiming victory over the liberal media, which had merely set out to trash their beloved Gipper and, among other things, his appalling record on AIDS. Even though these critics never saw the show, and even though Reagan never mentioned AIDS for the first six years of his administration.

Salon posted the whole script as a PDF. This dumba$$ can read the venom for himself. I hope that this bed wetting liberal has put fresh rubber sheets on his bed...

27 posted on 11/10/2003 11:51:55 AM PST by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
This is not to say that the Fairness Doctrine was without problems from a freedom of the press standpoint. But abolishing it led to even more trouble in television land, including the creation of entire "news" networks that spew lots of opinion and little fact.

We've "had" entire "news" networks that spewed lots of opinion and little fact. Only they all tilted left. Now that some obviously conservative news networks/radio is getting exposure people are waking up to just how socialist left leaning the news editors/anchors at Big Media were.

Beyond the "Fairness Doctrine", we have commercial free 501(c)3 radio stations on the left end of the radio dial; stations that are voluntarily limited in their political speech because of the tax dodge they take. Of course anyone who has listened to US taxpayer supported Pacifica or NPR will tell you that they violate their 501C3 charter everyday.

28 posted on 11/10/2003 11:57:00 AM PST by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
French Canadian?
29 posted on 11/10/2003 11:58:54 AM PST by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
can you spell a-s-s--h-o-l-e
30 posted on 11/10/2003 12:01:14 PM PST by The Wizard (Saddamocrats are enemies of America, treasonous everytime they speak)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
This article is a case study in psychological projection!
31 posted on 11/10/2003 12:02:01 PM PST by thoughtomator ("A republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
Zerbisias pines for the bygone era when dissenting opinion could simply be ignored by the liberal media apparat. How distasteful to live in this awful new world, in which one is constantly subjected to ideas one hates, and in which conservatives -- conservatives -- have taken it upon themselves to pressure the media, something that for decades was exclusively the province of one's fellow leftists. How disconcerting. How... unnatural.

And to think; this poor man's anguish is likely to continue for the rest of his earthly days.

Heh. Heh-heh-heh...

32 posted on 11/10/2003 12:04:04 PM PST by Interesting Times (ABCNNBCBS -- yesterday's news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timesink
Too many Canadians - especially the writers of the Toronto Star, arguably one of the most liberal papers in that country - have an extremely unhealthy obsession with the United States. Why the hell should they care what an American network decides to do about a miniseries about an American president?

You forget that Canadian Petah Jennings tells many an American what to think every day.

Peter is still a Canadian because he violated the loyalty oath that he swore when he "became" an American. He still claims his Canadian citizenship and says that he is a dual citizen (something that the US certainly does not recognize for foreign born nationals with foreign resident parents). He lied when he took his loyalty oath and is therefore still a Canadian. Some Canucks love mucking about in antiAmericanism.

33 posted on 11/10/2003 12:04:14 PM PST by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Voltage
The left would hoot and holler that truths portrayed in "The Clinton Years" were lies and exagerations. Show the scene of Hollywoodites Marky Post and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason jumping on the bed in the Lincoln bedroom. Show the coffees with the Chinese communist military. Show "Mr. President" receiving oral sex from an unpaid college intern on Easter Sunday. Show him receiving oral sex while deploying American troops on foreign soil. Show him receiving oral sex while making visting foreign heads of state wait in the Rose Garden. Show him laughing at funerals. And the whole thing ends with the trashing of the White House.
34 posted on 11/10/2003 12:09:07 PM PST by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Plutarch
Methinks that she may actually support Communism. So goes the US, so goes Canada...
35 posted on 11/10/2003 12:11:11 PM PST by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
According to this guy, half the U.S. population is "surreal" and "outrageous".

The kennel attendents for the yellow dog democrats keep telling them that Algore really won the 2000 election. I'd say that there are a large number of simpleminded idiots living in a surreal dreamworld. Albert Gore Junior was good at spinning this hooey; "Everything that is down should be AUP, and everything that is aup should be DOWN!".

36 posted on 11/10/2003 12:14:48 PM PST by weegee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Qwinn
>Don't you love it how morons like this claim that anyone >who doesn't take their side in a controversial charge, in >which people don't buy the leftist media line, >are "surreal" and "outrageous"? According to this guy, >half the U.S. population is "surreal" and "outrageous". >The arrogance is mind-blowing.

That's exactly right. I've gotten into several debates and the attitude was "you're so stupid, you don't even know how stupid you are". No logical reason as to WHY I was "stupid", but stupid nonetheless. I guess because I didn't jump on the bandwagon with them and actually required some semblance of thought and logic and that confused them.

37 posted on 11/10/2003 12:17:47 PM PST by sunryse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sunryse
If you haven't, you need to read Ann Coulter's "Slander". It addresses the "stupid" retort beautifully. I'll post one quote here, it's just too relevant not to.

Chapter title: "The Joy of Arguing with Liberals: You're Stupid!"

"If liberals were prevented from ever calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have "racist", "fascist", "homophobe", "ugly" and a few other highly nuanced arguments in their quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple them. Like clockwork, every consequential Republican to come down the pike is instantly, invariably, always, without exception called "dumb"."

"This is how six-year-olds argue: They call everything "stupid". The left's primary argument is the angry reaction of a helpless child deprived of the ability to mount logical counterarguments. Someday we will turn to the New York Times editorial page and find the Newspaper of Record denouncing President Bush for being a "penis-head"."

You gotta love Ann. No one puts it as hilariously or succintly as she does.

Qwinn

38 posted on 11/10/2003 12:27:31 PM PST by Qwinn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
The Reagans was never meant to be a news program. It was designed as drama, and cheesy drama at that. But its critics seem to be saying that most Americans can't discern between TV fiction and news.

This is certainly the current spin. It is a lie. What the libs are trying to obscure here is the clear line between fiction and biography. There are two entirely different sets of rules that apply, two entirely different levels of obligation to accuracy. Were the names of the principals artfully altered and the circumstances changed, any amount of "artistic license" (by which we mean deliberate distortion of the truth) is excusable, but where the principals are (1) living, and (2) presented under their real names, it is not only unconscionable, it borders on the downright illegal, to present falsehood masquerading as reality.

39 posted on 11/10/2003 12:36:07 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
I wouldn't expect the Canuks to "get it" about "the Reagans" and the ordinary Americans' reaction to it.
They've never had anyone like him.
40 posted on 11/10/2003 12:37:10 PM PST by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
He needs to have the photo retaken in his burqa.
41 posted on 11/10/2003 12:44:13 PM PST by Luke Skyfreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: weegee
He will always be just a peanut farmer to me.
42 posted on 11/10/2003 12:52:41 PM PST by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: kylaka
>The Reagans was never meant to be a news program. It was >designed as drama, and cheesy drama at that. But its >critics seem to be saying that most Americans can't >discern between TV fiction and news.

OOooohh I get it! The next time I want to slander someone and claim they made remarks they didn't actually make and that shows them in a negative light... I'll just say, "I'm not a NEWSSS PROGRAM!! Therefore I don't have to be accountable to anything!!" Thanks for the legal loophole Antonia!
43 posted on 11/10/2003 12:59:55 PM PST by sunryse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: All
BTW, the writer of the article can be responded to at azerbis@thestar.ca. Fire for Effect...
44 posted on 11/10/2003 1:32:23 PM PST by BFM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: holymoly

First, there was CBS's dumping of its sweeps period biopic The Reagans after a right wing-organized backlash, and then, at Thursday's Canadian Journalists For Free Expression awards dinner, I got into a surreal argument with a TV network foreign affairs producer who made the outrageous claim that the U.S. never lied about its motives for attacking Iraq.

The two events are related because it has been my experience in the past two years that, every time you raise an issue that makes those on the right uncomfortable, they change the subject and argue about something else.

I'm trying to figure out where in the article he shows that conservatives are changing the subject when he points out something about The Reagans. Or for that matter on Iraq. Or was that just some unrelated observation? This guy should cut down on the bong hits.

45 posted on 11/10/2003 2:05:20 PM PST by lasereye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
The Toronto Star is arguably the most far-left major daily paper in the Northwestern Hemisphere. The bias isn't pink-it's deep scarlet red.
46 posted on 11/10/2003 2:52:12 PM PST by RightWingAtheist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kylaka
He will always be just a peanut farmer to me.
What do you have against peanut farmers?
47 posted on 11/10/2003 3:20:04 PM PST by oh8eleven
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
It's a wonder I stopped bashing my head long enough to eke out this column.

The rattling sound coming from inside the head sounded like a baby's rattle. A big, loud one full of marbles.

You should put some ice on that.

48 posted on 11/10/2003 3:27:42 PM PST by Allegra (CBS has canceled this tagline. It was "not due to controversy." Tom Daschle is disappointed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oh8eleven
I have nothing against peanut farmers. But I'll bet those peanuts were real impressed by his degree in Nuclear Physics.
49 posted on 11/10/2003 4:19:19 PM PST by kylaka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: holymoly
....the outrageous claim that the U.S. never lied about its motives for attacking Iraq.

I've been hearing this accusation for months, but am still waiting to hear what exactly they lied about.

50 posted on 11/10/2003 5:44:42 PM PST by Jorge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson