Has Paul Krugman learned nothing from Dan Rather about "copies" of original documents?
posted on 06/24/2005 7:06:26 AM PDT
You are presuming that HE WANTS TO LEARN.
Now hush up!
There is a Republican President that needs to be destroyed!
posted on 06/24/2005 7:15:05 AM PDT
by Agent Smith
(Fallujah delenda est. (I wish))
He must not have got the memo that the docs are more than likely FAKE. But then we know the NYT standards are iffy at best. A copy of a copy of a conversation as related by a third party is ....well, FACT to the NYT and it's pathetic staff.
posted on 06/24/2005 7:15:14 AM PDT
Nobody "fixes" tickets in the UK. The word "fix" means either to set or to repair over there, not to do somethng underhanded.
posted on 06/24/2005 7:16:50 AM PDT
Do we really want him or the other libs to learn a damn thing? This is great stuff. The kookier they sound, the better.
I think the Liberals are holding onto the memo because it was typed from an original and also people very high up in the UK government have confirmed that the basis of the document is true.
Not sure how much of a case they have that way, but its always prudent to watch your enemy.
Please use only the original published title. Thanks.
Two questions come to mind, immediately. First, how do
the Krugmans of the media world account for the fact
that prior to the war President Bush consistently
offered Saddam Hussein the opportunity to modify his
practices with regard to WMD inspections? Second,
why are opinion polls worth citing now when they
weren't when public opinion was very solidly behind
posted on 06/24/2005 7:35:50 AM PDT
(NorCal Red Turf)
The memo is a Dan Rather, long living, unsupported by facts, it must be true even it's a fake.
We now found out that this reporter destroyed the original but showed re-typed copies.
Makes no difference for the NYT, it must be true based on their circumstantial discovered evidence.
Never mind these UN resolutions, or asking Hussein to go to other places.
A point to make: Hussein strongly, unshakably believed that Putin, Chiraq, Schroeder, Annan, would be powerful enough to keep Bush at bay.
And so did the NYT. Ever misjudged NYT?
Here comes one that does what he says, in contrast to Clinton who decided based on polls, and that's what's at the very base of their misjudgements.
What it is: another NYT belated self serving whitewash and justification.
posted on 06/24/2005 8:02:02 AM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson