Update on Newsweek story

[Proletariat]

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 Mind you, in both cases an anonymous source was at the root of the trouble, but the first article was never withdrawn and there have been many like that in the American press.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]

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]

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.

[Adrian II]

We all admit they got carried away.

Oh, now the buzz word is they got 'carried away'. Carried away by what exactly?

Give it up.

You admit your government lied and you say you don't care. That's what I call giving up.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Oh, now the buzz word is they got 'carried away'. Carried away by what exactly?

With trying to convince people like you that the war was needed or legal

You admit your government lied and you say you don't care. That's what I call giving up.

No I said they may have exaggerated. I never said I dont care. In fact Ive said it was stupid.

[Proletariat]

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'?

[Proletariat]

If you are saying that F Up One is > than F Up Two, because more lives were lost due to FU1, then you have to think there was an equal causality between the FUs and the lives they're responsible for.

There isn't an equal causality. Without FU1, Iraq would've been invaded. Without FU2, this instance of rioting would not have occured.

Can you help me understand what one has to do with the other or why they're being compared here?

[Adrian II]

FAIR doesn't say that Newsweek paved the way for war, but that alarmist coverage like Newsweek's did.

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

Because a paper that has done a good propaganda job for the government is now accused of left-wing bias. I'm always amused by right-wing Chomsky's who allege that the media is (sic) a left-wing conspiracy.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Because a paper that has done a good propaganda job for the government is now accused of left-wing bias.

Fir then to be doing propoganda for the administration they would have had to know the information was faulty and they willing went along with it. Im sure they were only too glad to admit they were wrong. I know the Times must have enjoyed taking back their support emensely.

I'm always amused by right-wing Chomsky's who allege that the media is (sic) a left-wing conspiracy.

Your article is a good example of left wing bias.

[Adrian II]

Im sure they were only too glad to admit they were wrong.

As far as I can tell they never did. And no one in Washington ever raised a stink about that article, even though it might well have been, so to speak, the straw that broke the camel's back...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As far as I can tell they never did. And no one in Washington ever raised a stink about that article, even though it might well have been, so to speak, the straw that broke the camel's back...

What are you talking about. You just posted an article where they admit they were mistaken. The Times had big headlines apologising for being mistaken on the run up to the war. Ive never seen them so proud to be wrong.

[Proletariat]

When you have time, could you address my earlier post (#18) before it gets lost? I've had a bad streak recently of posts that I really would like answered getting buried.

[Proletariat]

I'm always amused by right-wing Chomsky's who allege that the media is (sic) a left-wing conspiracy.

Me too. I prefer leaving the foil hats to the more creative minds of the left.

So you think it's the US mainstream media that caused Operation Iraqi Freedom?
(Yeah, yeah. Amongst other things.)

Even if that's true (which I do not believe), how does this negate FU2?

[Adrian II]

Even if that's true (which I do not believe), how does this negate FU2?

Such answers negate themselves, thank you.