El Viajero,

Just a few more sources so you can put the pieces together, and realize the tie between al-Qaeda, Hussein, and the Ansar al-Islam is real.

How about an Iraqi source? Their own admission.
http://www.iraqinews.com/org_ansar_al-islam.shtml

Let's move on to another source. Arabic News.
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/020914/2002091410.html

Now let's move on to another source. In this one, we have the King of Jordan indicating that al-Qaeda operatives are in fact seeking refuge, and are part of this organization.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5571

If that's not enough, start researching Intellnet... lots of information, including German source information that shows the links..
http://www.intellnet.org/news/?type=category&value=Ansar%20al-Islam

Another source that may interest you...
http://www.efreedomnews.com/News%20Archive/Iraq/SaddamKurdistan.htm

Maybe a German information service? You can translate it...
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,233777,00.html

Then there's links featured by the Islamic Council here in the U.S., well worth reading.
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/country_reports/Iraq/

I could go on with this, because I've read over three hundred different sources of information that relate to the issue, and the ties between Hussein, al-Qaeda, and these terrorists is so obvious that anyone who uses one iota of common sense will see it exists.

Enjoy reading over the weekend. Lots of information to sift over before you offer an "off the cuff" response.

Wolf

Wolf --

Thanks for the information links. I'll look at them tonight.

Booklady --

It's one of the weird quirks of American political discourse that we think of liberals as "the left" and mainstream Republicans as "the right". As an Argentinian coworker of mine once said, in other countries the elected officials represent a range of political parties that hold widely divergent views on public policy, where in the U.S. we mostly see two slightly divergent flavors of the same centrist party.

If liberals are flaming leftists, what are communists and social revolutionaries (no, I'm not necessarily conflating the two)? If mainline Republicans are right-wingers, what are -- well, take your pick based on how you define the right wing: Pat Robertson theocrats or the Christian Coalition any number of militia groups? The true left and true right both want to change the fundamental organization of American society, whereas we run-of-the-mill liberals and conservatives want to affect social policy from within the existing structure. If you'd said that CNN worked from a liberal understanding of the world, I wouldn't have challenged it, but you said "left," which wasn't consistent with what I've seen on CNN.

As for "unbiased" news coverage, there's no such thing. Because an editor cannot include stories on every single thing that happens in the world, there's a gatekeeping process built into news reporting. Editors include what they consider relevant, and obviously that's going to be based on reality as they understand it. "Politics" in the broad sense of the word will creep into that, since almost every aspect of life is political in some sense. An editor who believes that the world ecology is on the brink of collapse will choose different stories than someone who believes the environment is resilient enough to take whatever we throw at it. Bias affects every aspect of reporting, right down to whether the on-screen caption text for war coverage reads "War in Iraq" or "Operation Iraqi Freedom." That's why relying on any one news source -- or even any one country's news sources -- gives a very incomplete picture. The best broadcast reporters and interviewers -- Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, and any number of people at the BBC whose names I don't recall -- make sure that multiple views make it to the air and insist on careful fact checking. This last is what I most want from a journalist: a care not to report something until it has been checked and double-checked. Rather has been particularly admirable on that count, sometimes holding back single-sourced major stories till a day or two after other networks have put them out, waiting for corroboration.

Booklady,

I couldn't agree with you more. CNN withholding information about Iraq's atrocities and then insinuating that our president was an out of control maniac. Go figure. CNN not leftist, that's a good one.

El viajero,

I stick by my remarks. I don't care if they don't find weapons of mass destructions. And, it is these left centralist, like supposedly the last administration was suppose to represent, that disturbs me the most. Can anyone who supports our last president tell me what it is he supposedly contributed to our country? I can think of one thing only, and that is really what he didn't/couldn't do.

Cristobo,

I really enjoy your postings too, but I agree, we'll never see eye to eye. I wish there was a history forum on this bulletin board, because I enjoy the history of Spain so much. And I would like to compare notes with a Spaniard.

El viajero,

I just read this. Dan Rather an ardent fact checker? Without an agenda? Old Dan Blabber?

El Viajero,

You write:
Perhaps we see things in an inconsistent manner. Let's take the coverage of Cuba for example. I consider the Cuba news agency Granma point of view to be from the communist/marxist point of view.

I consider the New York Times a liberal newspaper, I consider CNN Liberal Left.
Let me share an example of how they cover the same news story.

In covering the recent horrors in Cuba, look closely to see the adjectives that the CNN news story uses. Look at the particular terms used to the hijackers: Then take a look at the same news story reported by the New York Times once again look closely at terms used to describe the hijackers:

Draw your own conclusions. I maintain that CNN's slant is the "flaming" liberal left.

el viajero,

So sorry - you are correct in your assesment of my statement about what the word "God" implies...still, you get my point that it does not consider those who may be Buddhist, who may be Muslim, or otherwise...it does not include them in a public showing of faith.

As for public opinion...I disagree with you there. The shift has been a steady, constant one...now the American public has been polled on whether or not this war was right - *regardless* of finding WMD. They say 'yes.' Which was not the case before the war. So - you see there is indeed an element of "fair weather" showing of support for this war. So...the shift was a big one.

Wolf,

On teaching - my point is that bias will always be a part of education. Is it ideal to remove bias? That is what we are debating. I did not use history lessons as an excuse - but as an example. It happens. Period. And should it? All I can tell you that a conservative college professor of mine made me think more critically than ever before due to his right-leanings. It made me UNDERSTAND the other side. Is the purpose of teaching to simply remember and regurgitate facts - or UNDERSTAND their significance? By seeing and understanding bias, one learns a great deal of understanding.

U.N.: Here's how I view the mission of the U.N. A communication channel to discuss matters of the world in the interest of peace. Period. Is debate and argument a part of communication? Absolutely...that is how we come to understand eachother. So I see no wrong in the U.N.'s role of facilitating discussion/debate/arguments. So, while you may not be able to point out a war that the U.N. has successfully waged - it appears you're using the wrong criteria for judging it's effectiveness. War is not the definition of it's role. As for significant roles it HAS played (non-war), see their web site. 191 conflicts were averted according to their Web site (and even if that is slanted info...surely some of those can be proven by independent sources as successfully averted - even 1/3 of those they claim were averted, it's still worth it my mind). Anyone who see's war as the U.N.'s measure of success will surely be disappointed.

And by the way, I hear you speak of (in so many words) a "U.N. Agenda." Don't forget the U.N. consists of representatives of countries. They only represent the opinion of their country (or government...). So when you say "U.N. Agenda" I say "World Agenda."

Your "ivory tower" rant is a two-way street. You should have gone to live in central Baghdad with your family while the worst of this war was waged - risked the fact that your mother could be bombed in a market or other "missed targets" and tell me if this war is worth it.

And by the way - just how has this war protected our rights? What threat was there to our freedoms from a weak regime that has nearly been toppled in three weeks? I fail to see this...and no one has addressed it despite queries from other people.

I have never said the Iraqi regime was a pleasant rule of law to live under. What I did say was that I didn't agree that the potential consequences it could create - both in and outside Iraq. My interest was about the least amount of human suffering. It's a fair, but predictive argument considering that this war was justified on *predicted* threat - not real threat (pre-emptive = prediction).

As for the rest of your last posting - once again it's back to name-calling and a clear absence of facts - more name-calling, more "Baghdad Bobs" and more "traitor" innuendos pointed in my direction for offering up a different point of view. And what would be funny if it weren't so sad and desparate, is your attempt to discredit me for ignoring people's experiences in brutal dictatorships. Have I done that? No. Did I express joy over our welcome in Baghdad? Yes. Like most people, I only want the best from this situation - even if I'm wrong (which I have yet to be convinced of...and again history will determine that years from now). It's a shame you took offense at the Rush remark...it appears you share his distorted form of "logic."

I know you are but what am I - that is what you and I are doing - quite futile and pointless and contrary to the facilitation and understanding of arguments of all sides of this issue. Blah! Boring!

(but on a lighter note, thank you for those media links...I will explore them because there are slants on all sides of this - and as mentioned earlier, I *do* try to stay balanced in all this madness by exploring every media outlet possible)

thijs,

I hope you don't take my statement as meaning you aren't American if you don't believe what I do, because nothing could be further from the truth. Like anyone else, I do get a little heated when I read things that disturb me. Just because our beliefs are so far apart shouldn't drive a wedge between us. You might say I've become very defensive of the issues related to the U.S. role in the world over the last thirty years, after coming home to my country and being called a traitor because I fought in Nam.

Instead of sitting back, doing drugs, becoming an alcoholic, and wasting my life away because of those issues, I became involved, and it's carried me into a different role in life. I have not been sitting on the sidelines, as some people on our board are very much aware. I won't go into the details, but let's just say I'm more inclined towards finding peaceful settlements for issues than starting a war to resolve them, and have devoted endless hours for that cause. But, at the same time, I realize there's a time when words fail, and action is the only recourse. Such it was with Iraq.

You're absolutely right about the UN avoiding nearly 200 wars. But in a lot of cases, the price of human life, and the degredation of societies of people was the price that was paid. As people who care about others, we cannot sit on the sidelines and watch genocide happening, and say we will negotiate a peace between parties, while one is systematically killing the other by the thousands, and telling the UN they are more than willing to negotiate a settlement with their enemies, when we know that the blood bath will continue, until they are through savaging their fellow man. If that's peace, I'll take war, because the loss of life is much less over the long haul.

Please understand, I not only believe in researching the internet, I usually have six to eight books written by authors from all across the political spectrum checked out of a major library at all times, because I thirst for information related to issues. Usually, within a week, I'm back for another half dozen or so, because I try to find what has caused the mindset people have.

At this time, one of my biggest concerns is that the Arab/Islamic world will do everything they can to undermine the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq. Not because it isn't the right thing to have, but because it undermines their own nations, which really don't often resemble democracy.

I wonder how the UN would handle rebuilding. Since Russia, France, and Germany were totally against us, I think they'd turn everything into a political issue and fight against any plans the US might have. Therefore, I feel we should choose to leave the UN out of the loop when it comes to the building of the nation's infrastructure. I don't like having it that way, but I sure don't want to see those nations create chaos, then conveniently blame it on the US, and anyone who's followed this issue knows that's exactly what will happen.

Rush Limbaugh? I can't stand the guy, and his right wing rhetoric scares the hell out of me. He has too many followers in my book. He doesn't speak for those of us who support the American/Iraqi issue, he speaks for the radical right.

How has Iraq threatened our rights? We have the fundamental right of feeling safe from harm. When terrorists are funded, and harbored by a regime, they are free to lash out against people at a time of their choosing. Such was the case of 9-11. The terrorists deprived thousands of the right to live a happy life. Any nation that would harbor these people is an enemy of the US. If we do not react with force, we'll have these people snipping at us forever, and the number of incidents won't decrease, they'll rise significantly. If you look back over the last two decades, the terrorists have become more emboldened by the lack of substantial reaction by the US, to take them down, as they hid in foreign nations. That's unacceptable.

Peace!

Wolf

Muchas gracias MM for letting this thread going on, and thank you for all opinions, specially to Wolf.

Yes, Wolf, I am very proud of our President Aznar, as many Spaniards are too. I think Mr. Aznar should have better reported the Spanish public opinion his reasons in order to give arguments to citizens, like Mr. Blair has been doing in Britain.

Unfortunately the media in Spain is a calamity, too biased. All tvs and most papers and radios are in favor of Saddam. Sometimes I have thought that demonstrators at streets don't care about this war. They are against it because the Americans are involved and Aznar's right government is running well the country.

Fernando, keep calm about a second civil war. Just go out into streets of Sevilla or Madrid and you will see that all bars are full of people, people are everywhere living, buying having fun, families paying their mortgages,.... and they are not going to put aside their “cervecita and tapas” just to fight each other (¿!!) Everyone has his dayly problems in our comfortable society.

Now, that the war is almost over, the world is a bit safer than before thanks to the Americans. I expect tyrants and terrorist in the world have understood the message.

People should know that the US is not only the country of “yankee imperialism”, Coca Cola and McDonalds. It is also the paradigma of democracy, individual liberties, estado de derecho, free trade and prosperity, sexual and religious freedom, independence of politic versus religion, equality between man and woman,.......And due to these principles the US has progressed and its the world reference in medicine, engineering, literature, economy and arts.

Just to finish, why are Vaclav Havel and Adam Michnik (from Solidarnosc, Poland) in favor of Bush? They have lived under totalitariam regimes and fought for democracy in their countries. So they know at first hand what living under such oppressive system is.

Saludos.

As far as I can tell, yes. In fact, he often qualifies things that field reporters state, carefully pointing out when the network has only one source for a piece of information, as opposed to corroborated facts. He does this regardless of whether the information in question would favor a liberal or conservative political view, so yes -- he's a stickler for responsible reporting.

As I just said, there's no such thing as a reporter without an agenda. What's your standard for responsible journalism? The bombastic posturing of Bill O'Reilly?

Okay, I see you're more into the Rush Limbaugh school of childish name calling. Wow... what a convincing and substantive way to make a point.

I don't see what's particularly liberal about the CNN piece. Unless I'm missing some context on the story, it's a slam at Castro, and the use of the word "gang" is arguably anti immigrant. It could just as easily have come from a conservative-leaning news source.