Update on Newsweek story

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-22-2005, 00:19

The article is a lame attempt at humor that only a liberal would enjoy

Its funny how these guys jump all over conservatives but when the press(newsweek of coutse is a rightwing rag) getsa it all wrong instead of critizing them, they make lihgt of it and just use it as another excuse to Bash the adminstration. FAIR my a$$. They wrote a big thing about how Rush lied and he tore then a new one.

**Adrian II** · 05-22-2005, 00:24

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

(..) when the press (newsweek of coutse is a rightwing rag) getsa it all wrong, they make lihgt of it.

Ahem! They assert that Newsweek got it all very wrong, but on a different occasion...

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-22-2005, 00:35

Yes and as you see it was so funny and clever that only I even answered it. As I said a very lame attempt at humor.

**Proletariat** · 05-22-2005, 00:39

Give me a break. Because they had an article on WMDs right before the invasion of Iraq that means this latest screw-up is trivial and over-blown?

I bet everyone slain during the riots with a cynical sense of humor thinks this article is 'hysterical.'

**Adrian II** · 05-22-2005, 00:49

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Give me a break. Because they had an article on WMDs right before the invasion of Iraq that means this latest screw-up is trivial and over-blown?

Indeed, the latest 'screw-up' (which I think wasn't one at all) is far, far less serious. Mind you, in both cases an anonymous source was at the root of the trouble, but the first article was never withdrawn and there have been many like that in the American press. That is why a majority of Americans still believe Osama was sitting on Uncle Saddam's lap playing with a live nuke in 2003. I know that even nowadays, many supporters of this war don't worry how and why they were misled by their government in 2002 and 2003. It just goes to show that most lies succeed because people want to believe them.

**Proletariat** · 05-22-2005, 00:56

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Indeed, the latest 'screw-up' (which I think wasn't one at all) is far, far less serious. Mind you, in both cases an anonymous source was at the root of the trouble, but the first article was never withdrawn and there have been many like that in the American press. That is why a majority of Americans still believe Osama was sitting on Uncle Saddam's lap playing with a live nuke in 2003. I know that even nowadays, many supporters of this war don't worry how and why they were misled by their government in 2002 and 2003. It just goes to show that most lies succeed because people want to believe them.

1) The US didn't invade based on Newsweek's article. The first botch-job didn't directly cause the 'far, far more serious' loss of life. The second f up directly caused those fatal riots, even if it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

2) People are dumb. We need a global monarchy.

**Adrian II** · 05-22-2005, 01:05

Originally Posted by Proletariat

1) The US didn't invade based on Newsweek's article.

LOL! Who said they did? What that earlier Newsweek article did was help spread the lies of a U.S. government that was cooking the books to start a war.

**Gawain of Orkeny** · 05-22-2005, 01:16

This is getting very old and tiresome. So its just another Bush lied thread in disguise.

What that earlier Newsweek article did was help spread the lies of a U.S. government that was cooking the books to start a war.

We all admit they got carried away. The difference is that some of us think there was no need to exagerate or lie as there was more than enough reason to attack without all this. In fact it was our duty to do so since your beloved UN cant back up its own resolutions. Once more I dissagreed with the invasion but not because Bush lied or as you keep trying to maintain it was illegal. Give it up.

**Proletariat** · 05-22-2005, 01:51

Originally Posted by AdrianII

LOL! Who said they did?

Your article.

...alarmist coverage like Newsweek's about Saddam Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction paved the way for an invasion that has caused, according to the best epidemiological research available (Lancet, 11/20/04), an estimated 100,000 excess deaths.

How does this make the outcry over the more recent mistake 'hysterical'?