Reporter Apologizes for Iraq Coverage

[conjur]

Clarke has started a trend. First him, then Kofi Anan apologize for Rwanda, now:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000474545

NEW YORK In the wake of Richard Clarke's dramatic personal apology to the families of 9/11 victims last week -- on behalf of himself and his government -- for failing to prevent the terrorist attacks, one might expect at least a few mea culpas related to the release of false information on the Iraq threat before and after the war.

This has not happened so far, with President Bush on Wednesday going so far as to joke about the missing weapons of mass destruction at a correspondents dinner in Washington.

While the major media, from The New York Times on down, has largely remained silent about their own failings in this area, a young columnist for a small paper in Fredericksburg, Va., has stepped forward.

"The media are finished with their big blowouts on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and there is one thing they forgot to say: We're sorry," Rick Mercier wrote, in a column published Sunday in The Free Lance-Star.

"Sorry we let unsubstantiated claims drive our coverage. Sorry we were dismissive of experts who disputed White House charges against Iraq. Sorry we let a band of self-serving Iraqi defectors make fools of us. Sorry we fell for Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations. Sorry we couldn't bring ourselves to hold the administration's feet to the fire before the war, when it really mattered.

"Maybe we'll do a better job next war."

Mercier admitted that it was "absurd to receive this apology from a person so low in the media hierarchy. You really ought to be getting it from the editors and reporters at the agenda-setting publications, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post."

Mercier, an editor and writer at the newspaper who writes a column two or three times a month, told E&P that the column was sparked by what he saw as "a need for accountability and reflection" given the seriousness of the current conflict in Iraq and the failure to find WMDs there or a strong Saddam link to al Qaeda. He saw little of that soul-searching in the one-year anniversary coverage. "By neglecting to fully employ their critical-thinking faculties, the media not only failed their readers and viewers, they failed our democracy," Mercier said.

Concluding his column, Mercier declared, "there's no excusing that failure. The only thing that can be said is, Sorry."

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: conjur
Clarke has started a trend. First him, then Kofi Anan apologize for Rwanda, now:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000474545

NEW YORK In the wake of Richard Clarke's dramatic personal apology to the families of 9/11 victims last week -- on behalf of himself and his government -- for failing to prevent the terrorist attacks, one might expect at least a few mea culpas related to the release of false information on the Iraq threat before and after the war.

This has not happened so far, with President Bush on Wednesday going so far as to joke about the missing weapons of mass destruction at a correspondents dinner in Washington.

While the major media, from The New York Times on down, has largely remained silent about their own failings in this area, a young columnist for a small paper in Fredericksburg, Va., has stepped forward.

"The media are finished with their big blowouts on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and there is one thing they forgot to say: We're sorry," Rick Mercier wrote, in a column published Sunday in The Free Lance-Star.

"Sorry we let unsubstantiated claims drive our coverage. Sorry we were dismissive of experts who disputed White House charges against Iraq. Sorry we let a band of self-serving Iraqi defectors make fools of us. Sorry we fell for Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations. Sorry we couldn't bring ourselves to hold the administration's feet to the fire before the war, when it really mattered.

"Maybe we'll do a better job next war."

Mercier admitted that it was "absurd to receive this apology from a person so low in the media hierarchy. You really ought to be getting it from the editors and reporters at the agenda-setting publications, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post."

Mercier, an editor and writer at the newspaper who writes a column two or three times a month, told E&P that the column was sparked by what he saw as "a need for accountability and reflection" given the seriousness of the current conflict in Iraq and the failure to find WMDs there or a strong Saddam link to al Qaeda. He saw little of that soul-searching in the one-year anniversary coverage. "By neglecting to fully employ their critical-thinking faculties, the media not only failed their readers and viewers, they failed our democracy," Mercier said.

Concluding his column, Mercier declared, "there's no excusing that failure. The only thing that can be said is, Sorry."

Well if many of us including myself weren't so eager to believe the Dub and his minions it really wouldn't have mattered what the Press said. We just couldn't imagine our Leaders being so decietful as to use the aftermath of 9/11 and the patriotic feeling we had because of it to manipulate us into supporting the Neocons preordained invasion and occupation of Iraq.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well if many of us including myself weren't so eager to believe the Dub and his minions it really wouldn't have mattered what the Press said. We just couldn't imagine our Leaders being so decietful as to use the aftermath of 9/11 and the patriotic feeling we had because of it to manipulate us into supporting the Neocons preordained invasion and occupation of Iraq.

True. I find myself in a similar situation. However, the generally accepted World view at the time seemed to support many of the conclusions that the White House put forth. For instance, It really wasn't disputed that there was WMD in Iraq. I think this more than the White House rhetoric led a lot of people to support our action in Iraq.

However, IMO, the reason for war is not something you can be wrong about and not suffer any political consequences, at the very least. In going to war, the White House was in effect, sticking out their necks, and since they proved to be misinformed, they don't deserve to be back.

Now, I do think it is our responsibility to help stabilize Iraq at this point and hopefully we can make some kind of amends with the UN, which will ultimately help Iraq to institute many democratic reforms, including free elections, in the future.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Well if many of us including myself weren't so eager to believe the Dub and his minions it really wouldn't have mattered what the Press said. We just couldn't imagine our Leaders being so decietful as to use the aftermath of 9/11 and the patriotic feeling we had because of it to manipulate us into supporting the Neocons preordained invasion and occupation of Iraq.

True. I find myself in a similar situation. However, the generally accepted World view at the time seemed to support many of the conclusions that the White House put forth. For instance, It really wasn't disputed that there was WMD in Iraq. I think this more than the White House rhetoric led a lot of people to support our action in Iraq.

However, IMO, the reason for war is not something you can be wrong about and not suffer any political consequences, at the very least. In going to war, the White House was in effect, sticking out their necks, and since they proved to be misinformed, they don't deserve to be back.

Now, I do think it is our responsibility to help stabilize Iraq at this point and hopefully we can make some kind of amends with the UN, which will ultimately help Iraq to institute many democratic reforms, including free elections, in the future.

Yeah we screwed the pooch going over there, we cannot just leave and say "Oops!"

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: conjur
Clarke has started a trend. First him, then Kofi Anan apologize for Rwanda, now:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000474545

NEW YORK In the wake of Richard Clarke's dramatic personal apology to the families of 9/11 victims last week -- on behalf of himself and his government -- for failing to prevent the terrorist attacks, one might expect at least a few mea culpas related to the release of false information on the Iraq threat before and after the war.

This has not happened so far, with President Bush on Wednesday going so far as to joke about the missing weapons of mass destruction at a correspondents dinner in Washington.

While the major media, from The New York Times on down, has largely remained silent about their own failings in this area, a young columnist for a small paper in Fredericksburg, Va., has stepped forward.

"The media are finished with their big blowouts on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and there is one thing they forgot to say: We're sorry," Rick Mercier wrote, in a column published Sunday in The Free Lance-Star.

"Sorry we let unsubstantiated claims drive our coverage. Sorry we were dismissive of experts who disputed White House charges against Iraq. Sorry we let a band of self-serving Iraqi defectors make fools of us. Sorry we fell for Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations. Sorry we couldn't bring ourselves to hold the administration's feet to the fire before the war, when it really mattered.

"Maybe we'll do a better job next war."

Mercier admitted that it was "absurd to receive this apology from a person so low in the media hierarchy. You really ought to be getting it from the editors and reporters at the agenda-setting publications, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post."

Mercier, an editor and writer at the newspaper who writes a column two or three times a month, told E&P that the column was sparked by what he saw as "a need for accountability and reflection" given the seriousness of the current conflict in Iraq and the failure to find WMDs there or a strong Saddam link to al Qaeda. He saw little of that soul-searching in the one-year anniversary coverage. "By neglecting to fully employ their critical-thinking faculties, the media not only failed their readers and viewers, they failed our democracy," Mercier said.

Concluding his column, Mercier declared, "there's no excusing that failure. The only thing that can be said is, Sorry."

Well if many of us including myself weren't so eager to believe the Dub and his minions it really wouldn't have mattered what the Press said. We just couldn't imagine our Leaders being so decietful as to use the aftermath of 9/11 and the patriotic feeling we had because of it to manipulate us into supporting the Neocons preordained invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Bull sh!t you couldn't imagine. I was right here to tell you. I was all over the PNAC thing. It's not that you couldn't or didn't imagine. It's that you didn't want to.

 

[Witling]

Red Dawn and DBL. I am tremendously impressed with your posts. I think the posts show a change in position in response to facts, which is something that not many of us on this board can claim. For me, it was an easy decision to go against the war. I live in a social setting that supports that. I saw the government lie its a$$ of about Viet Nam. I saw it lie its a$$ off about Iran/Contra. My favorite lie, however, was that in Gulf War I, "Iraqis were dumping Kuwaiti babies out of incubators to take the incubators back to Iraq." A well documented investigation showed that this was a lie. Who among us would dump a newborn out of an incubator? Yet we have no problem believing this about "the other."

The founding fathers had it right when they tried to structure a government that could be restrained. Politicians of both major parties lie to suit their needs and prejudices. I commend you both on realizing that you've been sold a lie. And, the next time, it may be the Dems selling the lie.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: conjur
Clarke has started a trend. First him, then Kofi Anan apologize for Rwanda, now:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000474545

NEW YORK In the wake of Richard Clarke's dramatic personal apology to the families of 9/11 victims last week -- on behalf of himself and his government -- for failing to prevent the terrorist attacks, one might expect at least a few mea culpas related to the release of false information on the Iraq threat before and after the war.

This has not happened so far, with President Bush on Wednesday going so far as to joke about the missing weapons of mass destruction at a correspondents dinner in Washington.

While the major media, from The New York Times on down, has largely remained silent about their own failings in this area, a young columnist for a small paper in Fredericksburg, Va., has stepped forward.

"The media are finished with their big blowouts on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and there is one thing they forgot to say: We're sorry," Rick Mercier wrote, in a column published Sunday in The Free Lance-Star.

"Sorry we let unsubstantiated claims drive our coverage. Sorry we were dismissive of experts who disputed White House charges against Iraq. Sorry we let a band of self-serving Iraqi defectors make fools of us. Sorry we fell for Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations. Sorry we couldn't bring ourselves to hold the administration's feet to the fire before the war, when it really mattered.

"Maybe we'll do a better job next war."

Mercier admitted that it was "absurd to receive this apology from a person so low in the media hierarchy. You really ought to be getting it from the editors and reporters at the agenda-setting publications, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post."

Mercier, an editor and writer at the newspaper who writes a column two or three times a month, told E&P that the column was sparked by what he saw as "a need for accountability and reflection" given the seriousness of the current conflict in Iraq and the failure to find WMDs there or a strong Saddam link to al Qaeda. He saw little of that soul-searching in the one-year anniversary coverage. "By neglecting to fully employ their critical-thinking faculties, the media not only failed their readers and viewers, they failed our democracy," Mercier said.

Concluding his column, Mercier declared, "there's no excusing that failure. The only thing that can be said is, Sorry."

Well if many of us including myself weren't so eager to believe the Dub and his minions it really wouldn't have mattered what the Press said. We just couldn't imagine our Leaders being so decietful as to use the aftermath of 9/11 and the patriotic feeling we had because of it to manipulate us into supporting the Neocons preordained invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Bull sh!t you couldn't imagine. I was right here to tell you. I was all over the PNAC thing. It's not that you couldn't or didn't imagine. It's that you didn't want to.

Well, maybe if you had any credibility people would have listened to you. You're nothing but a blathering bloated anti-conservative windsack. Statistics, however, dictate that you'll be right at least SOME of the time...this just isn't one of those times.

The war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms...which, as we've seen...they were with at least the long range missile program. The administration was stupid to focus on WMD, because it was Iraq's rogue status and lack of compliance and cooperation with arms inspectors that forced us to view them as a threat...like a known criminal with his hands behind his back unwilling to come clean. In this new era of terrorism, any un-democratic nation is obligated to bend over backwards to prove that they pose no threat. Yes, the obligation is on them. The dictators of these countries can feel free to run themselves and their people into the ground if they so choose, but the message this administration has sent, which has been heard by Iran and Libya, is that you will NOT be allowed to ever become an imminent threat to the civilized world...not any more.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: conjur
Clarke has started a trend. First him, then Kofi Anan apologize for Rwanda, now:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000474545

NEW YORK In the wake of Richard Clarke's dramatic personal apology to the families of 9/11 victims last week -- on behalf of himself and his government -- for failing to prevent the terrorist attacks, one might expect at least a few mea culpas related to the release of false information on the Iraq threat before and after the war.

This has not happened so far, with President Bush on Wednesday going so far as to joke about the missing weapons of mass destruction at a correspondents dinner in Washington.

While the major media, from The New York Times on down, has largely remained silent about their own failings in this area, a young columnist for a small paper in Fredericksburg, Va., has stepped forward.

"The media are finished with their big blowouts on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and there is one thing they forgot to say: We're sorry," Rick Mercier wrote, in a column published Sunday in The Free Lance-Star.

"Sorry we let unsubstantiated claims drive our coverage. Sorry we were dismissive of experts who disputed White House charges against Iraq. Sorry we let a band of self-serving Iraqi defectors make fools of us. Sorry we fell for Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations. Sorry we couldn't bring ourselves to hold the administration's feet to the fire before the war, when it really mattered.

"Maybe we'll do a better job next war."

Mercier admitted that it was "absurd to receive this apology from a person so low in the media hierarchy. You really ought to be getting it from the editors and reporters at the agenda-setting publications, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post."

Mercier, an editor and writer at the newspaper who writes a column two or three times a month, told E&P that the column was sparked by what he saw as "a need for accountability and reflection" given the seriousness of the current conflict in Iraq and the failure to find WMDs there or a strong Saddam link to al Qaeda. He saw little of that soul-searching in the one-year anniversary coverage. "By neglecting to fully employ their critical-thinking faculties, the media not only failed their readers and viewers, they failed our democracy," Mercier said.

Concluding his column, Mercier declared, "there's no excusing that failure. The only thing that can be said is, Sorry."

Well if many of us including myself weren't so eager to believe the Dub and his minions it really wouldn't have mattered what the Press said. We just couldn't imagine our Leaders being so decietful as to use the aftermath of 9/11 and the patriotic feeling we had because of it to manipulate us into supporting the Neocons preordained invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Bull sh!t you couldn't imagine. I was right here to tell you. I was all over the PNAC thing. It's not that you couldn't or didn't imagine. It's that you didn't want to.

I guess that must of been one your posts I didn't read because I figured it was like most of your other post. Pure unadulterated nonsense.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bull sh!t you couldn't imagine. I was right here to tell you. I was all over the PNAC thing. It's not that you couldn't or didn't imagine. It's that you didn't want to.

Well, maybe if you had any credibility people would have listened to you. You're nothing but a blathering bloated anti-conservative windsack. Statistics, however, dictate that you'll be right at least SOME of the time...this just isn't one of those times.

The war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms...which, as we've seen...they were with at least the long range missile program. The administration was stupid to focus on WMD, because it was Iraq's rogue status and lack of compliance and cooperation with arms inspectors that forced us to view them as a threat...like a known criminal with his hands behind his back unwilling to come clean. In this new era of terrorism, any un-democratic nation is obligated to bend over backwards to prove that they pose no threat. Yes, the obligation is on them. The dictators of these countries can feel free to run themselves and their people into the ground if they so choose, but the message this administration has sent, which has been heard by Iran and Libya, is that you will NOT be allowed to ever become an imminent threat to the civilized world...not any more.

Another "blinded by love of Bush" fool.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bull sh!t you couldn't imagine. I was right here to tell you. I was all over the PNAC thing. It's not that you couldn't or didn't imagine. It's that you didn't want to.

Well, maybe if you had any credibility people would have listened to you. You're nothing but a blathering bloated anti-conservative windsack. Statistics, however, dictate that you'll be right at least SOME of the time...this just isn't one of those times.

The war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms...which, as we've seen...they were with at least the long range missile program. The administration was stupid to focus on WMD, because it was Iraq's rogue status and lack of compliance and cooperation with arms inspectors that forced us to view them as a threat...like a known criminal with his hands behind his back unwilling to come clean. In this new era of terrorism, any un-democratic nation is obligated to bend over backwards to prove that they pose no threat. Yes, the obligation is on them. The dictators of these countries can feel free to run themselves and their people into the ground if they so choose, but the message this administration has sent, which has been heard by Iran and Libya, is that you will NOT be allowed to ever become an imminent threat to the civilized world...not any more.

Another "blinded by love of Bush" fool.

If it's easier for your pretty little head to interpret complex issues thusly, then so be it.

 

[InfectedMushroom]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: conjur
Clarke has started a trend. First him, then Kofi Anan apologize for Rwanda, now:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000474545

NEW YORK In the wake of Richard Clarke's dramatic personal apology to the families of 9/11 victims last week -- on behalf of himself and his government -- for failing to prevent the terrorist attacks, one might expect at least a few mea culpas related to the release of false information on the Iraq threat before and after the war.

This has not happened so far, with President Bush on Wednesday going so far as to joke about the missing weapons of mass destruction at a correspondents dinner in Washington.

While the major media, from The New York Times on down, has largely remained silent about their own failings in this area, a young columnist for a small paper in Fredericksburg, Va., has stepped forward.

"The media are finished with their big blowouts on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and there is one thing they forgot to say: We're sorry," Rick Mercier wrote, in a column published Sunday in The Free Lance-Star.

"Sorry we let unsubstantiated claims drive our coverage. Sorry we were dismissive of experts who disputed White House charges against Iraq. Sorry we let a band of self-serving Iraqi defectors make fools of us. Sorry we fell for Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations. Sorry we couldn't bring ourselves to hold the administration's feet to the fire before the war, when it really mattered.

"Maybe we'll do a better job next war."

Mercier admitted that it was "absurd to receive this apology from a person so low in the media hierarchy. You really ought to be getting it from the editors and reporters at the agenda-setting publications, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post."

Mercier, an editor and writer at the newspaper who writes a column two or three times a month, told E&P that the column was sparked by what he saw as "a need for accountability and reflection" given the seriousness of the current conflict in Iraq and the failure to find WMDs there or a strong Saddam link to al Qaeda. He saw little of that soul-searching in the one-year anniversary coverage. "By neglecting to fully employ their critical-thinking faculties, the media not only failed their readers and viewers, they failed our democracy," Mercier said.

Concluding his column, Mercier declared, "there's no excusing that failure. The only thing that can be said is, Sorry."

Well if many of us including myself weren't so eager to believe the Dub and his minions it really wouldn't have mattered what the Press said. We just couldn't imagine our Leaders being so decietful as to use the aftermath of 9/11 and the patriotic feeling we had because of it to manipulate us into supporting the Neocons preordained invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Bull sh!t you couldn't imagine. I was right here to tell you. I was all over the PNAC thing. It's not that you couldn't or didn't imagine. It's that you didn't want to.

Well, maybe if you had any credibility people would have listened to you. You're nothing but a blathering bloated anti-conservative windsack. Statistics, however, dictate that you'll be right at least SOME of the time...this just isn't one of those times.

The war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms...which, as we've seen...they were with at least the long range missile program. The administration was stupid to focus on WMD, because it was Iraq's rogue status and lack of compliance and cooperation with arms inspectors that forced us to view them as a threat...like a known criminal with his hands behind his back unwilling to come clean. In this new era of terrorism, any un-democratic nation is obligated to bend over backwards to prove that they pose no threat. Yes, the obligation is on them. The dictators of these countries can feel free to run themselves and their people into the ground if they so choose, but the message this administration has sent, which has been heard by Iran and Libya, is that you will NOT be allowed to ever become an imminent threat to the civilized world...not any more.

remove head out of your a$$ and start thinking.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: conjur

Another "blinded by love of Bush" fool.

If it's easier for your pretty little head to interpret complex issues thusly, then so be it.

What's complex about your blind love of Bush? It's obvious you think he can do no wrong.

You're an apologist for him.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bull sh!t you couldn't imagine. I was right here to tell you. I was all over the PNAC thing. It's not that you couldn't or didn't imagine. It's that you didn't want to.

Well, maybe if you had any credibility people would have listened to you. You're nothing but a blathering bloated anti-conservative windsack. Statistics, however, dictate that you'll be right at least SOME of the time...this just isn't one of those times.

The war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms...which, as we've seen...they were with at least the long range missile program. The administration was stupid to focus on WMD, because it was Iraq's rogue status and lack of compliance and cooperation with arms inspectors that forced us to view them as a threat...like a known criminal with his hands behind his back unwilling to come clean. In this new era of terrorism, any un-democratic nation is obligated to bend over backwards to prove that they pose no threat. Yes, the obligation is on them. The dictators of these countries can feel free to run themselves and their people into the ground if they so choose, but the message this administration has sent, which has been heard by Iran and Libya, is that you will NOT be allowed to ever become an imminent threat to the civilized world...not any more.

Another "blinded by love of Bush" fool.

If it's easier for your pretty little head to interpret complex issues thusly, then so be it.

Whew! That takes a Bladder-busting volume of Kool-aid.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: conjur
Clarke has started a trend. First him, then Kofi Anan apologize for Rwanda

Does anybody else see the irony in this? Recall the libbies here ran around calling anyone who remotely agreed with Bush an "apologist?"

Now look at them, they are running around actually apologizing. And...and... for what you ask? Aparently our attack on Iraq, which if you ask a libbie is all Bush's fault.

Therefore, libbies are really Bush apologists.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: conjur

Another "blinded by love of Bush" fool.

If it's easier for your pretty little head to interpret complex issues thusly, then so be it.

What's complex about your blind love of Bush? It's obvious you think he can do no wrong.

You're an apologist for him.

I said they were stupid for choosing to focus on WMD and gave MY OWN reasons why Iraq needed regime change. How is that being an apologist?

I think you're just a small guy who wants to see a powerful conservative fall. What's wrong? Father not pay enough attention to you? The nuns at your catholic school slap you on the wrist one too many times? It's okay...it's not too late to start loving yourself for who you are. See the inner value of yourself...embrace it...let the insecurity fall away like amber leaves from a maple tree...now...take a deep breath...better?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: conjur
Clarke has started a trend. First him, then Kofi Anan apologize for Rwanda

Does anybody else see the irony in this? Recall the libbies here ran around calling anyone who remotely agreed with Bush an "apologist?"

Now look at them, they are running around actually apologizing. And...and... for what you ask? Aparently our attack on Iraq, which if you ask a libbie is all Bush's fault.

Therefore, libbies are really Bush apologists.

Is that Dub logic?

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Is that Dub logic?

So far I've gotten two lame responses from Red Dawn and he hasn't threated to punch me yet. Slow day Red?

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: conjur
Clarke has started a trend. First him, then Kofi Anan apologize for Rwanda, now:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000474545

NEW YORK In the wake of Richard Clarke's dramatic personal apology to the families of 9/11 victims last week -- on behalf of himself and his government -- for failing to prevent the terrorist attacks, one might expect at least a few mea culpas related to the release of false information on the Iraq threat before and after the war.

This has not happened so far, with President Bush on Wednesday going so far as to joke about the missing weapons of mass destruction at a correspondents dinner in Washington.

While the major media, from The New York Times on down, has largely remained silent about their own failings in this area, a young columnist for a small paper in Fredericksburg, Va., has stepped forward.

"The media are finished with their big blowouts on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and there is one thing they forgot to say: We're sorry," Rick Mercier wrote, in a column published Sunday in The Free Lance-Star.

"Sorry we let unsubstantiated claims drive our coverage. Sorry we were dismissive of experts who disputed White House charges against Iraq. Sorry we let a band of self-serving Iraqi defectors make fools of us. Sorry we fell for Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations. Sorry we couldn't bring ourselves to hold the administration's feet to the fire before the war, when it really mattered.

"Maybe we'll do a better job next war."

Mercier admitted that it was "absurd to receive this apology from a person so low in the media hierarchy. You really ought to be getting it from the editors and reporters at the agenda-setting publications, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post."

Mercier, an editor and writer at the newspaper who writes a column two or three times a month, told E&P that the column was sparked by what he saw as "a need for accountability and reflection" given the seriousness of the current conflict in Iraq and the failure to find WMDs there or a strong Saddam link to al Qaeda. He saw little of that soul-searching in the one-year anniversary coverage. "By neglecting to fully employ their critical-thinking faculties, the media not only failed their readers and viewers, they failed our democracy," Mercier said.

Concluding his column, Mercier declared, "there's no excusing that failure. The only thing that can be said is, Sorry."

Good for him. It needed to be said. Let's see if The New York Times and The Washington Post are big enough to follow suit. Let's see if ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN are big enough to follow suit. Our free press owes America an apology.

 

[Moonbeam]

M: Bull sh!t you couldn't imagine. I was right here to tell you. I was all over the PNAC thing. It's not that you couldn't or didn't imagine. It's that you didn't want to.

RD: I guess that must of been one your posts I didn't read because I figured it was like most of your other post. Pure unadulterated nonsense.

M: In the first place it was not just in one of my posts. In the second place you clearly read some of my posts. In the third place, I was not the only person making that case. In the forth place, what about the notion you didn't want to know? I completely agree with Witling's post but you've been around all that time too. I commend you also on the ability to change your mind. I also happen to think that our judgment is screwed up because we don't understand our motivation, namely that we believe what we want to believe. Unless we see that we will always remain a prisoner of unconscious feelings. And in the fifth place what I said to you applies to a lot of people, some of whom might not know enough not to read what I post.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: conjur
Clarke has started a trend. First him, then Kofi Anan apologize for Rwanda

Does anybody else see the irony in this? Recall the libbies here ran around calling anyone who remotely agreed with Bush an "apologist?"

Now look at them, they are running around actually apologizing. And...and... for what you ask? Aparently our attack on Iraq, which if you ask a libbie is all Bush's fault.

Therefore, libbies are really Bush apologists.

Do you know what apologist means? Obviously not. Here is a hint. It involves making excuses, not apologizing. You should try knowing what you are blathering about before you criticize others. If you apologize now for being clueless it will not make you an apologist.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Is that Dub logic?

So far I've gotten two lame responses from Red Dawn and he hasn't threated to punch me yet. Slow day Red?

Sorry... Throws an e-left hook to Dirtboys festering melon

 

[Moonbeam]

HOP: The war was on the grounds that Iraq would pose a threat to the US and the world in the near future because of their deception and constant attempts to developed or acquire forbidden arms...which, as we've seen...they were with at least the long range missile program.

M: This was not the reason congress was given.

HOP: The administration was stupid to focus on WMD,

M: It wasn't stupid at all at the time, remember; it was judged to be the only excuse that would sell.

HOP: because it was Iraq's rogue status and lack of compliance and cooperation with arms inspectors that forced us to view them as a threat...

M: Forced us my ass. Poor stupid us, we just had to conclude they had WMD cause they forced us too. You make us sound like morons.

HOP: like a known criminal with his hands behind his back unwilling to come clean.

M: Innocent till proved guilty, unless you are a bigot.

HOP: In this new era of terrorism, any un-democratic nation is obligated to bend over backwards to prove that they pose no
threat. Yes, the obligation is on them.

M: Since when does a psychopathic fear monger create his own law. This is the law of the jungle we have worked for decades to fix.

HOP: The dictators of these countries can feel free to run themselves and their people into the ground if they so choose, but the message this administration has sent, which has been heard by Iran and Libya, is that you will NOT be allowed to ever become an imminent threat to the civilized world...not any more.

M: Ah, the cowboy is on the warpath against the evil Indians. Under this doctrine we become the enemy and menace of the world. We arrogate to ourselves the aberrant notion that we are the ultimate judge jury and executioner, exactly like Saddam and Hitler. You are a sick and evil person, but you are proud because all you can imagine is that you are always right. This is the law of the jungle, the law that might makes right. He who lives by that principle will die by it.

 

[SuperTool]

Bill Frist was bashing Clark for apologizing, which was kinda despicable.
Saw it on the Daily Show. I cancelled the cable TV I had, but for some reason they turned off all the channels except Comedy Central and BET. Fo Shizzy
I guess I am missing out on important Scott Petersen trial news by not having Faux or CNN.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Bill Frist was bashing Clark for apologizing, which was kinda despicable.
Saw it on the Daily Show. I cancelled the cable TV I had, but for some reason they turned off all the channels except Comedy Central and BET. Fo Shizzy
I guess I am missing out on important Scott Petersen trial news by not having Faux or CNN.

Come on...that apology was such an ego-centric move that not even you should have thought it was anything but masterbatorial self-righteousness.

"I'm sorry...I failed you by not stopping Bush from failing you."

Ah, gee...it's okay...thanks for trying at least. :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:









:disgust:

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: SuperTool
Bill Frist was bashing Clark for apologizing, which was kinda despicable.
Saw it on the Daily Show. I cancelled the cable TV I had, but for some reason they turned off all the channels except Comedy Central and BET. Fo Shizzy
I guess I am missing out on important Scott Petersen trial news by not having Faux or CNN.

Come on...that apology was such an ego-centric move that not even you should have thought it was anything but masterbatorial self-righteousness.

"I'm sorry...I failed you by not stopping Bush from failing you."

Ah, gee...it's okay...thanks for trying at least. :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart: :heart:
:disgust:

Stewart made a joke about Frist just being pissed he didn't think of it first. I tend to agree.
After two years of passing the buck around, it was a breath of fresh air, and it resonated. :light: