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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (36697)	2/1/2004 4:21:06 PM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 89467

Civil War Started? reuters.com Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. diplomat and expert on the Kurds who was in Arbil, said the attack could strengthen the hand of Kurdish groups that want to break away from the rest of the country, threatening further chaos in Iraq. "It is too early to predict the fallout, but the bombings will strengthen those in the Kurdish movement who want to insulate Kurdistan physically and politically from the rest of Iraq," Galbraith said. Those killed included Sami Abdul-Rahman, deputy prime minister of the KDP government in one half of northern Iraq. Akram Mantik, governor of Arbil province and his deputy Mehdi Khoshnau also died, as did the chief of the KDP headquarters. The top PUK official in Arbil was critically wounded. "The significance of this is devastating to the leadership of the Kurdish Democratic Party, one of the U.S.'s biggest allies in the war," Galbraith said. WOLFOWITZ: "WE ARE WINNING" ==================================================================== Exactly what is it we are winning? Are we winning the peace? Are we winning cooperation? Are the number of deaths dropping or rising? Are the number of terrorists in Iraq more or less than before we went there? Is Wolfowitz an idiot or what? Mish

To: lurqer who wrote (36697)	2/2/2004 2:05:42 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 89467

"and how one judges the credibility of statements from a biased individual, have been spelled out on this thread" "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." -Desiderius Erasmus, Adages

To: lurqer who wrote (36697)	2/2/2004 2:11:38 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 89467

Armstrong Williams on the American Media coverage of the Hutton report. The "Times" and the "Washington Post" sure didn't make a big deal of it. - From: LindyBill .......So you would think that a report that vindicates two of the world's most powerful leaders from charges that they deliberately deceived the world would be a big news item. After all, the story has implications for the war on terrorism, the Wilsonian idealism of carrying democracy into the Middle East, and how we intend to confront the basic problems of dictatorship, tyranny, misery and poverty in that area. It also sheds a harsh light on the world's largest news organization. The Hutton report raised serious questions about whether the BBC embraced an overt political agenda in its war coverage. Those nagging questions led to the forced resignation of two senior executives, an open apology to the Blair administration, and open protests by hundreds of staff members. An investigation into how the BBC gathers information will likely follow. It is possible that several western news outlets could be subject to similar scrutiny regarding their war coverage. For all of these reasons the Hudson report needs to be viewed not just in terms of a British political story, but in terns of a global news story that also has direct impact on the Bush administration. Yet somehow these rousing points were lost on the majority of the American network news organizations who dedicated almost no coverage to the Hutton report when the findings were first released. The lone exception: Fox news, which instantly beamed the story out to the public. Once that happened, the rest were forced to follow. So why was the broadcast media gun shy on reporting a story that has serious repercussions for the leadership of the western world, as well as the veracity of the world's largest media corporation? Likely it has something to do with the fact that the BBC set the agenda with regard to war coverage. Their consciously anti-US rhetoric had a ripple effect on the rest of the press and public opinion. The Canadian broadcast corporation followed their lead, as did many of the big US broadcasters. It's not in the interest of any of these organizations to highlight their own sloppy reporting. While the BBC has been forced to admit and scrutinize their own journalistic shortcomings, it is unlikely that the other major US broadcasters will follow suit, raising disturbing questions about the integrity of several major media outlets in their coverage of the war, and President Bush in general. townhall.com.