Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: H-Man who wrote (81)	4/11/2003 12:56:37 PM
From: H-Man	Respond to of 20773

And I wonder, how many other secrets like this CNN has.

To: H-Man who wrote (81)	4/11/2003 1:13:39 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Hi H-Man, You made a lot of points and I'll address them one by one, if you don't mind: I think it is fairly obvious that she does not like GWB. If I remember correctly, the point you first made about Woodruff's reporting was that she was antiwar, not necessarily anti-Bush. I think these two things are only sometimes mutually exclusive. For example, I really dislike Bush and worry that his hauteur and hamhanded diplomatic actions going into the action in Iraq may result in a world of pain for the US for years to come. BUT, I supported this military action, am extremely grateful to our troops, and hope Saddam is found and killed. I am not alone in my perception of Woodruff. Most recently, she was simply incredulous of the celebrations going on in Baghdad. You could tell she never expected this. I didn't see her reporting on the day the Saddam staue came down in Baghdad, but any reporter, regardless of how they felt about the appropriateness or morality of the action, would have to be pretty naive to think there wouldn't be celebration in the streets at that time. After all, Saddam had Iraq under his thumb for 35 years. But regardless of this widely held perception, Woodruff often expressed cynicism over these widely known atrocities. The knowledge of these atrocities, if not specific should have been included in all political reporting in the matter. They were not. It's my understanding, based partly on this op-ed piece in today's Times that I posted earlier, that many of Saddam's atrocities could not be reported until now, for fear that those who talked would be tortured and killed. This creates an incredibly inaccurate impression of the situation. Yes, but perhaps necessary for the safety of our allies and news media. I think -- I hope-- we'll be hearing a lot more about the inner workings of Saddam's regime in the next months. The guy is a monster, IMO.