On the Iraq thing, two thoughts to keep in mind.
First, it's worth expounding upon or disaggregating the concept of "state sponsorship" of terrorism. A Libyan government agent placing a bomb on a plane is one thing; an Afghan government providing shelter and protection for Osama is another; and the throwing of some rhetoric and a few bucks towards some enemies of your enemies is something else still. Figuring out just what the Iraqi connection is/was i important, both analytically, morally, and practically (because different responses may flow from different levels of involvement).
Second, press coverage has to scrutinized carefully. I'd say that it's times like these on which you want to rely more than ever on solid sources of information, and particularly the nation's top newspapers. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal all have very strict standards for what they publish, and you can be pretty comfortable with the facts you're getting there. Network news is also useful for breaking news (although top wire services are more accurate and almost as quick), but I'd rely on it only until a good newspaper becomes available.
Today, for example, the front section of the WSJ has a piece on the Iraq connection that lays out what I've been saying here--the professional consensus, as it were. That consensus may change in light of events, but you can generally rely on a news story in the Journal to give you at least a half-way decent picture of what it is at the moment. Today's New York Post, on the other hand, splashes the supposed Iraq connection in a giant banner headline on its cover--entirely irresponsible and evidence of how one should choose sources of information carefully.
tb@treadstoomuch.com |
