Your rationalization still fails to explain the point I raised; namely, that the media buried dissenting opinions of the Bush administration's own experts in the run-up to war, while trumpeting the scare stories.
After all, it was those lurid headlines that played a key role in generating public support for the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq.
Yes, now that the invasion/occupation of Iraq is a done deal, a fait accompli, the media offer a limited hang-out that attempts to regain some credibility by pinning the pre-war, bogus scare stories on the intelligence agencies, but which stops far short of admitting their own culpability in deceiving the American public.
It's something akin to the used car salesman who admits that maybe that engine wasn't so great after he makes the sale, and you're stuck with a worthless pile of junk. It wasn't his fault tho' - the mechanics all said the motor was fine.
You attribute this fishtailing to lack of media integrity. I'll agree that's part of the problem, and it leads to an obvious question:
Does the media have integrity only when it prints stories with which you agree?
S
Current Events » in reply to I Was Referring To The Post War Coverage
You can't have it both ways
The whole thread (37 posts)
- Saddam Catchers Hunt Bin Laden . . .
- More propaganda, unfortunately.
- Wow
- Bow wow in bowser world
- "What the hell is wrong with the Democrats that they are willing to resort to whatever slander they can find with the remotest shred of evidence?"
- I JUST lost your high regard??!!
- I JUST lost your high regard??!!
- Wow
- More propaganda, unfortunately.