From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Fri Feb 14 2003 - 12:42:03 MST
Perhaps even cynical, liberal, journalists believe that a truely evil regime
as Saddam's must be replaced? Perhaps that when 3000 Americans die, we now
seek regime changes, where attitude changes seem unlikely? Perhaps in a world
where proliferation has become a watchword, there needs to be a bully on the
block to better ensure American safety? Perhaps, there is also French and
German complicity in selling Saddam industrial goodies to help keep him a
player, in a global arms race? And Peter Arnett's views about Saddam are
well-known, and he doesn't seem to disapprove.
Dr. Graps stated:
<<One of the programs I remember particularly well was a Thursday
evening talk show of an intense discussion with ~6
politicians/political party people and one journalist: Peter Arnett.
They were (of course) discussing the possible war in Iraq, and trying
to understand the Bush administration motivations for such a war. At
one point Arnett said: "You know you would never see such a discussion
as this on American TV."
He's right, you know. So why not? Why is the current narrative of
the U.S. media in Bush's back pocket, if policies are forged that
affects everyone's (U.S. citizen's and others) lives? Who is paying
for that narrative?>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 14 2003 - 12:44:37 MST