Posted on 10/11/2004 5:41:15 AM PDT by Quilla
Impressive. Unlike CBS, they don't contact a political campaign to give them a heads up on info when working on an article.
In other words, they actually do journalism.
As the original article states, these documents are largely still under the radar for the admin because they are just a small part of a mountain needing to be translated still.
I met Scott at the CN convention in Phoenix several year ago. Straight shooting guy and quite a character. It was great getting acquainted with him.
1) They were not vetted by Dan Rather or CBS News.
2) They do not appear to be created by Microsoft Word.
3) They were not faxed in by an "unimpeachable" left wing nut with a grudge.
Obviously CNSNews is not in the same league as the MSM.
Have I read the report? No. But the administration has agreed that it reports no active program, no ongoing capacity, no stockpiles, and so forth. So, back to my orginal question, are they being truthful about agreeing with it?
bump for later.
Quilla thanks.
For the others, FYI and ping lists.
Thanks for the ping. I read this with great interest yesterday and found it fascinating.
Don't forget this story.
An Egyptian sailor was in Brazil, where he would join his ship as it traveled to Canada. He opened the suitcase he was carrying in his hotel room, says the report... and now he's dead from anthrax.
http://windsofchange.net/archives/003393.php
You're quite welcome, Grampa. I noticed that the article was moved into "Breaking News" since I last logged on to FR. Hopefully, these documents will get the exposure they deserve.
BUMP!
Scott is a hard working conservative at CSN.
Hopefully this will get traction.
I sent info out to several "friendly" media types when the story first broke here and of course never received a reply nor have I seen it mentioned in the MSM.
Even at Fox, the only person that has ever responded has been Linda Vester. Since she has had her show "Dayside", she has responded to every email thay I have sent her. The responses were not automated replies because they make mention of the content of my emails. Linda's "Dayside" show has great potential if she does not do too many supermarket tabloid type segments. I would encourage all to send her ideas for segments of her show.
I'd happily strangle Hussein for the painting alone.
Thanks very much for the ping.
Not a big surprise!
Thanks.
This does not contradict the pages published above as far as I can tell. For example above there's a page documenting that they procured some anthrax and mustard gas. Is that an "active program"? I guess not. Yet it still means that they had some anthrax and mustard gas (i.e. "WMD").
These simpleminded categories people have in their head ("Iraq had WMD!" or "Iraq didn't have WMD!") are not all that related to reality, and (i.e. in your case) lead people to see contradictions where there are none. "WMD" are not well-defined objects that exist in boxes labeled "WMD" that you either have or don't have. They come in variations and degrees. Unfortunately this is the kind of issue that can't be adequately described by a screaming headline, hence we get absurd contradictions.
For example, lots of people now seem to think that the Duelfer report Proves That Iraq Had No WMD. Yet just this summer, you might recall, we got a bunch of news stories about how we've found several shells in Iraq containing.... WMD. So this seems like a contradiction unless you abandon the idea that the headline "Iraq Had No WMD" is actually a fair summary of the Duelfer report.
no ongoing capacity
Again does not contradict anything above as far as I can tell. What pray tell is an "ongoing capacity"? Well I suppose it's the metaphorical equivalent of a functioning assembly line to produce "WMD" (which, when the mainstream media talks about them seems to be limited to: missiles tipped with chem or bio warheads; they seem not to know about anthrax). One can think they did not have such an assembly line and yet think the docs described above are genuine because again, they do not actually contradict as far as I can tell.
no stockpiles
"Stockpiles" has been the biggest media con job of all. Frankly I don't give a rat's ass about whether Iraq had "stockpiles". Who moved the goalposts to that absurd level? WTF is a "stockpile" anyway? When exactly does a collection of chem warhead shells become a "stockpile"? At what magical number - 17? 23?
But again, "Iraq had no stockpiles" and "the docs above are genuine" do not seem to contradict anyway.
There are no contradictions you've pointed to. If you think there is a contradiction, tell me where.
So, back to my orginal question, are they being truthful about agreeing with it?
The point, as you can see, is that the answer to that question is irrelevant to this thread. That question is only interesting if the two are in contradiction, but you have no reason to believe that they are.
My guess? Yes I suppose they're being "truthful"; Duelfer comes back, writes a report, what are they gonna say? They say "looks ok to me". What's your point?
bump
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.
