Ashock,Oct 28 2004, 11:27 PM Wrote:So, in your opinion, The Washington Times is not a reputable enough source? Would you react the same way if the word "Times" would be preceded by the words "New York"?
As far as the russkies are concerned, well this is easy. The reason the story came out now, is because Putin wants Bush to win, so he leaked this info now. These days (as always has been the case), the russians will do anything (and I mean anything) to further their goals. Now, they would not make this up as this is a very serious matter that does not cast them in a good light, but they *will* go as far as admitting to something like that if it suits their purposes. In a case like this, they simply figured that the positives stemming from a Bush re-election, outweigh the possible negatives that come out from this story, at least for them.
There's always been rumours and allegations that the weapons were ferried out of Iraq before the US troops went in. There's never been concrete enough proof. Well, this simply confirms those rumours.
Believe me, I understand that you will fight tooth and nail to find a reason to dismiss this or anything else that will make the present administration look better, but that's ok with me.
-A
[right][snapback]58574[/snapback][/right]
"Believe me, I understand that you will fight tooth and nail to find a reason to dismiss this or anything else that will make the present administration look better, but that's ok with me."
Oh, don't worry, Ashock. I've seen enough to know that that's exactly what you understand I'll do. Indeed, your belief might be reinforced by my response to...
"So, in your opinion, The Washington Times is not a reputable enough source? Would you react the same way if the word "Times" would be preceded by the words "New York"?"
... this. Do I believe the Washington Times is a less reputable source than the NYT? Yes. Do I believe everything the NYT prints? Of course not. Politically, I'm only slightly farther from the Washington Times than from the NYT. Much of what the NYT put out in the frenetic drumming for war ("stuff that makes the present administration look good") turned my stomach. I didn't believe them when they printed crap, nor do I believe anyone else when they do the same, to the best of my abilities.
However, as was pointed out, the source I was (primarily) criticising was not the Washington Times. They're just the messenger, although the ad for "stolen honor" was a little blatant. I was critcizing one John A. Shaw, deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security. The guy who works under Rumsfeld, a past master at spewing complete junk to cover his butt.
"These days (as always has been the case), the russians will do anything (and I mean anything) to further their goals."
Like, maybe, lying about things? What makes it more reasonable that they're "admitting" this to make Bush look good, rather than just being outright dishonest to give Bush the boost?
Jester