Only because I ran out of time researching and didn't hit any of those sites before I posted. Perhaps I will be able to do more research today and I'll post some more. It was meant to show that information and opposing views exist out there and it is available to anyone willing to search for it. It is sad that we have to search on our own to find information that should be broadcast in the media, true. It is also sad that we have to review many sources in order to see both sides to a story. I really think anyone watching the news in the U.S. today though should be able to see the tilt of the stories in the media. In some ways it is not as bad as a hundred years ago when political parties invested in newspapers. Back then, there were not so many other means of obtaining information so the people could be convinced to believe a certain thing given enough prodding in the newspapers. Today, there are many more sources and some are internet based alone. It doesn't take much education or intelligence to know when you are being convinced of something that may not be the entire story. Morning news is especially interesting. A lot of the sources for information are now other journalists or hired pundits that only further support a network's views. NBC very often uses MSNBC journalists and talk show hosts to provide opposing views and are presented as subject matter experts. :o) Now isn't that funny!



>>When I posted that comment, I was being completely facetious.
>
>My bad re the "LAtimes debunked". Your possibilities references also facetious? You dont list any from CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, Univision, BBC World.
>
> :0) Based on Evan's debunking other posts due to the source of the information in his opinion being a neo-con source. Here in the U.S., with freedom of speech, there is very little enforcement of nonpartison leanings in our media. Almost every source leans to the left or the right. (That is afterall, how many newspapers were started) It is necessary these days to watch and read more than one source and to read/hear both sides in order to see a more middle of the road view of the same events. I typically watch many news shows these days - CBS, ABC, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, Univision, BBC World, etc. Often I see the same story portrayed many different ways. I think it is important to use many sources and evaluate the story or source after weighing all of the sources. We cannot rule out any one source of information, but weigh its value based on other sources as well.
>>
>>
>>>I have to use your own LATimes "and therefore are debunked" position on this one. Worldnetdaily, newsmax, and washtimes make foxnews looked like a ted kennedy publication.
>>>
>>>>Some possibilities:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050427-121915-1667r.htm
>>>>http://www.2la.org/syria/iraq-wmd.php
>>>>http://www.2la.org/syria/wmd.html
>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36463
>>>>http://www.nationalreview.com/geraghty/geraghty200401120834.asp
>>>>http://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/24135.htm
>>>>http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml
>>>>http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040816-011235-4438r.htm
>>>>http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1340941,00.html
>>>>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36844
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I am most certainly NOT ignoring any intelligense.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you read my post, I posted that the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, as well as
>>>>>the United Nation's own team (their name escapes me) both scoured Iraq
>>>>>for WMD's and neither found a trace.
>>>>>
>>>>>How is this 'totally ignoring any intelligence that supports this assertion'?
>>>>>
>>>>>And, what 'intelligence' can you provide that supports your own assertion
>>>>>that Iraq moved these weapons?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>I disagree. You can't possibly beleive that Iraq had a stockpile of WMD's
>>>>>>>that they have completly erased all evidence of?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>We've been in Iraq for 2 years now, and no one has found so much as 1 illegal
>>>>>>>weapon. Not a trace.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The lack of evidence speaks volumns.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's not only possible for me to believe they removed them during the six months they had, it is what I believe. You are totally ignoring any intelligence that supports this assertion. I've posted several citations - read them.