It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NEWS: Powell Interview: "Furious and Angry" at false Iraq info

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 07:29 AM

Originally posted by supercheetah
Personally, I forgive him for what he's done during his time with the Bush administration.

Really? So you're fine with him forgoing his principles to grease the war marketing for the benefit of his son's career?

One of the first things Bush did on taking office in 2000 was institute his unoffical Family Rewards Program for staffers and allies.

Forget the war on Iraq, the war on us was happening in places like Michael Powell's FCC. The "Commission" exploded in size under Powell and got into everything from assisting media monopoly mergers to Bush's re-election campaign to dictating morality.

I can't begin to relate how inconsequential Colin Powell or even the War in Iraq is to the American people compared to Michael's technocratic war on nipples and upstarts. You'll feel it on the net soon enough though.

Colin's dog and pony show was a diversion to a diversion to a diversion.

The "war" the past 5 years has been on us, our liberties and our future with this administration being a weapon of mass destruction in and of itself to our airwaves, our environment, our judicial system, our legislative system, our education system, our tax system, our benefits and beliefs and every aspect of our private lives.

My God, forgive Colin Powell? Hell no. I don't even forgive 51% of Americans. May their children never do so either.

posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 07:41 AM

Originally posted by subz
MemoryShock, you missed a few points with your rather lengthy rant over the quality of that news story. One, the story title is my own and not that of the source. It clearly states who's speaking, what he said and where he said it. The news story pertains directly to an interview given by Powell so there is no need to fill in the blanks of the story, only to comment on what he actually said. If you read the article you'd read that it does that quite well.

I regret, despite the authorship, my inclusion of the title.....although, imo, Powell's reaction to these facts are quite irrelevant.....

The first paragraph of the Reuter's story is a logical fallacy.......a couple of grammatical and journalism rules were broken, however the main point is that the necessity for Saddamn's removal does not preclude the errors made in the removing of. These are two seperate points....

1)Saddamn had to save the future of Iraq and make certain our oil interests...

2)Our international and public relations department screwed up big time in the dissemination of this information. The U.S. misrepresented their case to our allies and their is a history of it (North Korea/Pakistan/Libya

As you can see, the thoughts expressed in the first paragraph should not be merged.

Btw, subz, this aptly termed rant was not meant to be directed at you.......The presentation of a news article for discussion was well done......but I believe a comment on the quality of the story proper should include a look at how the information is presented as the presentation goes a long way towards the interpretation by the this case, it is a glossing over of a major problem with how our nation does business.....

posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 09:42 AM

Originally posted by MemoryShock
Also, the use of the word but negates any prior information in the statement. .

Just one example from the post that I agree with but for what is written in it.

I disagree that but negates 'any (meaning all) prior information.' but is used to denote exception(s).

Be that as it may, dinging the cited story as propaganda doesn't inform me whether the poster agrees or disagrees with the sentiments of the story.

Is the story fallacious?


posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 11:35 AM
I understood where you were coming from MemoryShock and I knew you were writing about the yahoo story and not my own
But you were treating the news story as if it was 100% factual when it was based on some ones 'point of view' where the only 'truth' is what he said.

Whether what he's said is true is not the point of the article, its the fact that he has said it.

I hope that made sense

posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 11:53 AM

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
I have a real issue with this. The majority of UN sanctions imposed on Iraq were to prevent development of weaponry (WMD) that could be used against it's neighbors. In all the years UN inspectors were monitoring that, there were no violations. In all the years the UN inspectors were barred from Iraq, there were no violations. In the lead up to the war, the UN demanded that inspectors be allowed back into the country - they complied. The UN demanded full accounts of Iraq's weaponry - they complied. Iraq did everything asked of it to prove it was in compliance, but we were told it was all a lie and there was "proof" it was a lie.

We're the ones who were lying, we're the ones that broke the UN resolutions, we're the ones who need to stop bitching about the cost of the war because even if it breaks the US economy, we have an obligation to stabilize and rebuild a country that we invaded under false pretenses.

That's the bottom line at the end of the day isn't it? Never mind the bs and state the facts. This war had nothing to do with WMD and was merely used to sell the lie to the American public. It did however have everything to do with getting a foothold in the middle east. Good summary

posted on Mar, 31 2005 @ 07:05 PM

Originally posted by subz
Whether what he's said is true is not the point of the article, its the fact that he has said it.

Aaaaahhhhhh........a very good point.....

However, I think it is relevant to note that the person speaking is considered a viable source.....attaching a name to information is a tried and true technique....advertising/celebrities, and all.......potentially meaning that people are going to listen and accept what he is saying without regarding why.......

Joe...I agree that it is used to denote exceptions. noting the exception, it has negated all the information used in the set-up. The fact that the preposition and the clincher were technically unrelated, this compounds the use of the word 'but'.....the statement includes a tiny concession; 'there were errors made'; and segues into the 'but Saddamn is an evil tyrant'.......this, to me, suggests a disinclination to even focus on the issues of American Bureacracy by pacifing the public with a generalized statment based on cultural ideologies....again, I'm looking at the technical aspects of the story......

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in