I have said in the past that the media NEEDS a Kerry Presidency in order to recapture it's heyday!
To start The Trek let me highlight:
Point A - Well all I have to say is it is a war for goodness sake!
But common sense will give you a bit more insight, to start with you have the amount of explosives, reported to be 380 tons. (some confusion as to weather it is metric tonnes or english, but that isn't that important) In a land where we KNOW there were 600,000 tons of weapons - KNOWN WEAPONS 380 tons isn't that large an amount. Now don't get me wrong, any amount is dangerous - but seriously, see point A above!
Next is the timing of the reports - it seems the last IAEA confirmation report was in January 2003. The weapons were reportedly sealed in March 2003 but were open when our troops liberated the munitions dump April 10, 2003.
NBC had an embedded crew with the army unit that found the dump and confirms that the weapons were not there when they were located. Drudge is all over this - the weapons were not there when we got there! What is the deal - see point A above!
He is also reporting that MSNBC is reporting this line about our wonderful allies: Jim Miklaszewski quoted one official: "Recent disagreements between the administration and the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency makes this announcement appear highly political."
What, how could that be - considering the huge sums of money that were dancing around out there could it be that they weren't quite as political as financial in their concerns!
Captain's Quarters is reporting that the NY Times didn't get the memo from NBC - they are attempting to hammer the story one more time! Just to make their point that George W. Bush is a bad man! And they have first ammendment protection!
They should be ashamed of their behavior, as Roger Simon point points out:
But I cannot shut up. This kind of biased behavior is unconscionable. Although it is nowhere near as drastic, of course, it makes me think of the days of Walter Duranty, that Timesman who won a Pultizer while white-washing Stalin. How could such things happen, I always wondered. Now I know. They happen when people think they are doing the right thing for the right cause and in their zeal don't stop to consider the reality of what they are saying and writing. Yes, this is worse than Jayson Blair.
I couldn't agree more!
By The Way (BTW) can someone point out to me how many fighting allies we had in World War II? It was only 17! Yep, only Seventeen! There were non-fighting ("Moral Support") supporting allies primarily from south and central America.
Now, although they attempted to pay off Hitler by giving him Europe Hitler wasn't able to pay off leaders of other nations in an attempt to ensure his survival! That level of greed and slime wasn't reached until the current century 0r was it, here are the reasons the League of Nations was considered a failure:
- It lacked any armed forces.
- Unanimous vote was required.
- A number of major countries were not included:
- Even though president Woodrow Wilson had been a driving force behind the League of Nations, the United States never joined, after its Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and on January 19, 1919 voted not to join the League.
- Germany was a member only between 1926 and 1933.
- Japan and Italy began as permanent members, but left in 1932 and 1937, respectively.
- The USSR joined only in 1934, and was expelled on December 14, 1939 for aggression, after it invaded Finland.
- Ineffectuality in specific situations, notably the mid-1930s crisis over Italy's invasion of Abyssinia.
- A non-permanent council and assembly made for slow decisions.
- The most important members protected their respective self-interests.