If I say the sky is green, and someone calls me a witch (in the classic, not the colloquial, sense), or a nut, or a liar, that's "demonizing".

If I say the sky is green, and someone points out that it isn't green, it's blue (or grey, or whatever color it happens to be that day), that's "pointing out error".

The article never called Mr. Powell names. It pointed out the considerable lack of corroboration that any discoveries have so far provided for his statements. It pointed out error. The reader is left to draw his or her own conclusions.

In legalese they call it "leading" and it is improper. The article while going through loops to damn each point they could but still ended up not proving that anything Powell said is untrue - yet certainly gives the reader the impression that every word he uttered was a lie.

Case in point this section:

• Powell said Iraq produced 4 tons of the nerve agent VX. "A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons," he said.

• Powell didn't note that most of that 4 tons was destroyed in the 1990s under U.N. supervision. Before the invasion, the Iraqis made a "considerable effort" to prove they had destroyed the rest, doing chemical analysis of the ground where inspectors confirmed VX had been dumped, the U.N. inspection agency reported May 30.

Experts at Britain's International Institute of Strategic Studies said any pre-1991 VX most likely would have degraded anyway. No VX has been reported found since the invasion.

This little bit is a great example of their leading the reader. When they say the word "most" was destroyed in the 1990's - they conveniently leave out the amount. Yet one reads it and it seems like most all of it must be destroyed. But really how much is most? And they conveniently left out this bit right here.

I find it frightening that a journalist can gloss over 1.5 tons of VX, whitewash the existence of 157 tonnes of anthrax and paint the US as a false aggressor against a WMD-free Iraq, dont you? In fact, I find that quite outrageous.

As for using a quote from the Britain's IISS saying the VX would have likely degraded anyway- they also had other more ominous positions regarding Iraq as well:

On nuclear weapons, the government's intelligence-backed dossier is actually more conservative than a recent independent assessment by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, which said Saddam could obtain weapons "within months".

Hmmm. So they are selectively quoting things to paint the war as falsely justified even though they fail to balance it withother quotes. Does that seem like honest journalism or a news organization demonstrating integrity to you?

Well, we see it's an AP piece by Charles J Hanley. Who's he? An investigative journalist. Does he have an agenda? Let's see...

Hmmmm. He co-authored a demonizing book about the US military in Korea.

Heck, they give Pulitzer's to folks for any good dirt on Americans - even fifty year old dirt.

So let's see...bad US killers then....and now.

I would bet that Mr. Hanley is working on a book as we post. A book about Iraq and the US killers of innocent Iraqis. Not only that - but I bet that AP article is just an excerpt from a chapter on Powell's presentation - a roughdraft of sorts of things to come.

Yes, the man's got an agenda - he's made good money and won a Pulitzer telling people the US are a bunch of bad guys. Some folks may eat that stuff up for breakfast, but not me.

Behind every anti-US piece, usually lies a selfish and biased motive. It usually doesn't take much time to find it if one really wants to.

Demonize:

1. To turn into or as if into a demon.
2. To possess by or as if by a demon.
3. To represent as evil or diabolic

Powell's testimony is presented by Hanley as a bunch of lies to sponsor a war which killed thousands of people and hundreds of US soldiers - I'd call that "demonizing".

You can call it "pointing out error" and be semantic - but the only errors it really illustrates well are those of the article's author.

The easiest way to read the piece objectively is to put yourself in it. Replace Colin's name with Mary Anne and reread the piece. Do you feel demonized? How do you think Colin feels?

SDAI-Tech1