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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (24673)	1/16/2004 1:47:44 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793725

Also from Kurtz. <<Columbia Journalism Review's new campaign blog whacks Drudge: "Thursday afternoon, the Drudge Report chimed in with a grossly incorrect headline, 'Wes Clark Made Case For Iraq War Before Congress; Transcript Revealed' atop an article designed to distort the General's position. In excerpting Clark's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on September 26, 2002, Drudge entirely misrepresents the candidate's remarks. "Drudge quotes Clark's testimony: 'There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat . . . Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001 . . . He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.' [ellipses Drudge's] "Drudge is using the ellipse as a weapon, with malice aforethought. Clark's statement that 'Saddam Hussein is a threat' came from his opening remarks to the committee. An ellipse then carries the reader more than 11,500 words later into the transcript to a second quotation. Finally, Drudge uses the next ellipse to jump way back to the beginning of Clark's testimony. The effect is to make Clark's testimony sound more frantic than it really is and to incorrectly suggest that Clark had endorsed the war.">> And this: <<Not everyone likes this story line, judging from this posting on the Wilgoren Watch site: "I guess I'm missing something here, but why the hell is it any of our business what role Mrs. Dean plays in Gov. Dean's political life? We're electing him, not them. The right-wing bitched and moaned when Bill & Hillary said they would be a "two-for-one" special {ndash} vote for Bill and Hillary comes with him. Now they're bitching and moaning that Gov. Dean has a spouse who couldn't care less about politics.">>