The Jan. 21 front-page headline “Fewer hit with Iran bomb” is misleading and belligerent. The headline conveys a sense of a direct bombing campaign by the Iranians and could have been mistaken for a press release directly from the Bush administration.
Journalists should be wary of taking this administration’s word as gospel. They have been continually shown to be incorrect at best and criminal at worst.
Even the lead of the article lends some doubt to the assurance of the bomb’s origin by the administration by referring to the weapon as merely “thought to come from Iran.” Though the device may well have originated in Iran, it is clear that we should no longer allow the administration’s estimates to be delivered without restraint.
Sean Foley
Prairie Village
Engineer,
Please keep in mind I am not against this war because it is Bush's war. If anyone but Obama gets in they have made it plain the war will continue. If Barrack gets in he'd find its too far along now to just leave.
My opposition to this war is based on the fact that the war on terror has become a much broader war of religious convictions with many, many more enemies today than we had in 2001. The Taliban and Al queda were a minority opinion in the world until the invasion to topple our old friend and ally in Iraq and our continued presence there. And lets not forget that even that demon Osama was our client at one time, when it served our purpose.
Posted by: solomon | January 27, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Good morning Engineer,
I believe, not feel, that you are splitting hairs to say we are not at this time occupying Iraq. I am basing this on the fact that no Iraqi is in a governing position that was not approved by us. We have an enormous military presence and have put in place a curfew, segregated the Iraqi people by a plan of our design and have plans for a long term presence in the country. if occupation is not the term you'd use please supply a better one.
Are far as "our right to be there" being a moot point because we're already there, that is like saying if a kid is the toughest on the block he has a right to rule and bully everyone on the playground. Its really just that basic.
Posted by: solomon | January 27, 2008 at 11:41 AM
"Your method seems to be to avoid presenting any reasoning of your own and to ask loaded questions with false premises to elicit statements so you can attack them. This may be an effective means of arguing but not of holding a discussion. Do I "feel we are making trouble in the Middle east by our war of aggression and long term occupation of Iraq?""
That's solomon who posed that question, not me.
Posted by: CRD | January 26, 2008 at 10:10 PM
CRD
Your method seems to be to avoid presenting any reasoning of your own and to ask loaded questions with false premises to elicit statements so you can attack them. This may be an effective means of arguing but not of holding a discussion. Do I "feel we are making trouble in the Middle east by our war of aggression and long term occupation of Iraq?" No. First of all it is not an occupation in the sense that we have taken over the operation of the Government. Our presence is to control the situation until the new government is fully capable of taking over. After that date it is my opinion that we will keep a significant force there to maintain stability in the area. IMO this will be done no matter which party is in control or what individual is president of the USA. As to "right to be there' that seems to be a moot point. We are there and IMO we will stay there. And I do believe our presence has a stabilizing and dampening influence on Iran, Syria and Libya. Second, I try to arrive at my views by what I think, not what I "feel".
Posted by: Engineer | January 26, 2008 at 07:26 PM
know
Posted by: solomon | January 26, 2008 at 04:45 PM
Hi Rogue,
I did not ask what advantage occupying Iraq gave us, I asked what right we have to be there. As long as I no you are listening, let me ask you this, in human history, what other aggresive invasion and occupation of a legitimate country by a force from halfway around the world would you consider just?
Posted by: solomon | January 26, 2008 at 04:34 PM
It is a lot cheaper and easier to launch from an FBO in Iraq than it is from Germany or Korea. Look at the map Solly.
Posted by: Rogue | January 26, 2008 at 04:24 PM
Engineer,
I know I'll be lambasted for this one but don't you feel we are making trouble in the Middle east by our war of agression and long term occupation of Iraq?
If not, please express by what right we are there, and explain why the Iranians have no right to oppose us.
Posted by: solomon | January 26, 2008 at 03:08 PM
"Do you really believe that Iran is not attempting to make trouble in Iraq?"
Didn't say that. How could you infer that from what I posted?
Posted by: CRD | January 26, 2008 at 02:10 PM
CRD
Do you really believe that Iran is not attempting to make trouble in Iraq? And do you really think that the machined plates for IED's capable of a focused blast got from Iran without the government's knowledge? And if it's energy they are interested in why aren't they building refineries? By the way, that sure was a crudely done thing you lonked.
Posted by: Engineer | January 26, 2008 at 02:06 PM
It's hard to disagree with this: "Journalists should be wary of taking this administration’s word as gospel." In fact, journalists should be wary of taking anyone's word as gospel. Unfortunately, they unskeptically print every story that fits their world view, and a very few that do not.
Posted by: Gary | January 26, 2008 at 02:03 PM
What do you have against the US cooker fox? I do think it is great, what is wrong with that? I am proud to be a patriot. You are not?
And CRD, could you be Sophie? You seem so much like her with all your inane leftist links that you constantly post?
Posted by: Rogue | January 26, 2008 at 01:23 PM
You seem to be advocating that we believe any and all unsupported assertions of this administration.
Me, I won't get fooled again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qDuG0ZYD5I
Posted by: CRD | January 26, 2008 at 01:01 PM
Sean Foley and a number of posts on this thread seem to be taking up Jimmy Carter's MO of dealing with Iran. Sure worked great when he tried it.
Posted by: Engineer | January 26, 2008 at 12:55 PM
Yeah, BuddyT is Rogue, to no one's surprise.
http://blogs.kansascity.com/unfettered_letters/2008/01/presidential-ca.html#comments
Posted by: CRD | January 26, 2008 at 12:22 PM
So I take it BuddyT got kicked out for his posts? heh... makes sense. He never did talk about the actual letter. He only called names and bash the writer/star.
Not that that is warranted on occasion, but constantly?
I have to admit that Rogue has sure picked up where he left off. I don't know if they are the same or not, but they sure seem cut from the same Gun toting/War is great/US deserves to be able to do anything it wants it the world because they owe us mentaility.
Posted by: cooker_fox | January 26, 2008 at 10:44 AM
OK Jim if I get to be Buddy, who are you, Sophie, Irish Guy? I think you sound more like Irish Guy.......
Posted by: Rogue | January 26, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Foley's just calling a spade a spade, BuddyT. His letter is "balls on" as you used to say!
Posted by: Jim | January 26, 2008 at 09:59 AM
Proof and evidence make no difference and hold no merit when it comes to global welfare and war. You can drop a bowling ball off a building and tell the sheep it is gravity but once they are set in there ways they will not budge on rethinking the proof or evidence. I would imagine some of the ordinence that lands in Palestine is stamped Made in the USA, of course that is different.
Posted by: NoMoreMrNiceGuy | January 26, 2008 at 09:37 AM
Man it was almost, almost a week before we had another significant Bush bashing. Close but no ceegar! Way to come to the resuce Mr. Foley.
Posted by: Rogue | January 26, 2008 at 08:55 AM