June 16, 2004



That CBS News stuff is unbelievable. This is journalism? Cheap, easily debunked propaganda, at best. It's a miracle Americans have the slightest idea what's going on in the world, or their own country. And about the WaPo ..... wow. I realize "best" is a comparative, but it's usually indistinguishable from the other major papers in its pathologies.

Joe Cirincione, a very nice guy but utterly clueless on any substantive matters, is influential? That's so improbable, scary, and depressing that I'll simply refuse to believe it .....

Michael B

"Carefully worded."

Ah yes, carefully worded. An understatement indeed given the political agenda being advanced here, both by the MSM and this self-vaunted and self-enamored "9/11 commission".

And if we lowly ones in fly-over country are ever deemed worthy enough, perhaps someday they'll feed us poor humble masses a crumb of truth or two. Provided of course we're obeisant enough and duly deferential to our benefactors for bein' so very, very kindly to us. Another bowl of soup kindly sir?

Oh well, it's just another maelstrom of confusing disinformation from the MSM/Left nexus. So what's there to be surprised about?

As noted, both the news as well as the partisan 9/11 commission is framing so much of this stuff as "Truth" from on high, not to be questioned. But reviewing the commission's report itself I kept asking - from where and what is this based upon? Is this simply more chapter and verse cited from Washington D.C. yet again, even when it comes to this issue? I.e., had exactly the same thoughts as your own overview notes.

That's precisely the thing that makes reading analyses and commentary at this blog so refreshing. I understand I'm being treated like an intelligent, sentient human, not like a Stepford, yes-man clone fed information by the MSM and Washington D.C. that thereafter is not to be questioned. The odd part though is that the ruse seems so transparently obvious, both in print and on screen; as if the emperor so obviously doesn't have a stitch of clothes on, yet many applaud the tailoring nonetheless. Who is the performance addressed to any more other than a shrinking audience and - themselves, to shore up their own weakening beliefs?

I'm Cryin'

You people are a riot. There's evidence, not proof I hasten to add, that al Qaeda and Saddam's officers knew about each other and may have even chatted. Of all the countries in the world that al Qaeda has had 'relationships' with this is among the weakest. What do you hope to accomplish? Did Michael B let slip the real obsession: to shore up your own weakening beliefs? al Qaeda pulled off 9/11 without assistance from Iraq. Many Americans believed Saddam was invovled in 9/11. The American military had to be told that they were getting the people responsible for 9/11. Administration surrogates hinted as much, and the administration took no pains to suggest otherwise. So now a conflation of innuendo and possible universes gets deflated. What exactly is it you are clinging to here? That the urgency for war wasn't primarily based on fear-mongering. That 9/11 wasn't used opportunistically to satisfy a pre-held desire? That the shoddy war propaganda and sloppy post-war planning weren't the direct result of an administration either freaked out or giddy? What is the myth you so desperately want to preserve?


"And with that, we shall wait and see what the morning papers do."

In a world where shades of gray block out all the sun, where apologies rain down in thousands of droplets, and tyrannical dicators are King and nuance composes the court, we have the NYT calling for Bush to apologize for waging war with Iraq.

Richard Meixner

I don't read the NYT (only quotes and comments), but I can only hope that they have continued success with their PC commitment to obscurity. One would think all that sand in one's face would become tiresome.

Andrew Buncombe has a blindingly similar, 'enlightened' view of the commission's "wisdom." (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=532341)

Michael B

Not even a decent try I'm Cryin'. The Atta/Prague meeting has neither been proven nor disproven, so am an agnostic in that area, a skeptic both toward those who believe and toward those who disbelieve in an overly confident manner. It's simply inconclusive, though there is some circumstantial evidence that supports the eye-witness in Prague. Still, that's not the point of the post and I for one am not willing to argue Atta/Prague herein.

The import of the post was the 9/11 comminsions' lack of transparency with available evidence (a failure to make it much more obvious as to what their statements are based upon) and seemingly attempting to make the evidence say more than it warrants as well. Also there's some misdirection being employed when the commission itself and the MSM reports overly emphasize the "no Saddam and 9/11" message: 1) It avoids the wider Saddam/al Queda question, outside of the purview of 9/11 per se and 2) again, the Atta/Prague meeting has to this point neither been proven nor disproven, at least in terms of the open source information.

The comments to this entry are closed.