Unfortunately the large number of hack journalists seriously undermine any good decent ones do. Look at the majority of tabloids like the Sun or Mirror in the UK or (and I expect a backlash) the likes of Fox News.
No one disputes that Saddam was working on, or attempting to have WMD. Really the only question is whether any of them were usable, or a genuine threat. Here’s an example of a article from a liberal new source that confirms that they existed, but debunks the importance of the news by confirming that Saddam’s nuclear material was not sufficiently refined for fission, and could only have been used for a “dirty bomb”, and that his chemical weapons were degraded or of poor quality, and thus not usable: http://tinyurl.com/oggshfm
Since the weapons clearly existed, but were not really dangerous, that allows both sides to spin the news their direction. One side ignores the fact that they existed at all and says “there were no WMD”, when really the truth is that there actually were WMD, but they weren’t operational. The other side points to the materials and says, “see, there were WMD”, and ignores that they weren’t operational. The truth is somewhere in between.
In the end, if we take the middle road, we are left with the question of how accurate our information was. Clearly we knew, and knew correctly, that Saddam wanted to have WMD, and was trying to have them. Did the government know that his WMD were useless, and lie, saying that they were useful? Or, did we genuinely (but incorrectly) think they were useful? Or, while they weren’t useful at the time, might they have become useful if we had done nothing? There are questions I can not answer, but I think that in the end they are the correct questions.
After looking at the comments (which I feel are WAAY to serious for a comic strip), I want to return to the pun. The dinosaurs should find and eat the reporters editor. After all: readers digest, writers cramp!
I tend to agree with neither party. I was not a fan of invading Iraq, but I understand why it happened. On the day after 9/11, I made two predictions. The first was “That is the end of Iraq as we know it”. The second is “It will end up a mess. They have been fighting in the Middle East for 6000 years, and they will still be fighting there after we leave. Nothing we can do will change that, and there is nothing to be accomplished putting ourselves in the middle of it.” Did we make things worse by intervening? No doubt. Did we make things worse when we left abruptly. Probably. Was there something we could have done that would have worked better? I doubt it. The best thing we can do is to manage our energy policy in a way that avoids dependence on the Middle East, and then stay out of it.
TheSkulker about 9 years ago
Oh? You mean like the WMDs and other untruths leading up to the invasion of Iraq that were reported on so faithfully?
DocNero about 9 years ago
Unfortunately the large number of hack journalists seriously undermine any good decent ones do. Look at the majority of tabloids like the Sun or Mirror in the UK or (and I expect a backlash) the likes of Fox News.
thirdguy about 9 years ago
It is kind of amazing, to see what kind of discussion can follow a bad pun.
markhughw about 9 years ago
or, chuck meat the press (as in Chuck Todd, the current moderator of Meet the Press)
Cerabooge about 9 years ago
I stopped watching Meet The Press long ago, about the time I started calling it Press The Meat.
cubswin2016 about 9 years ago
That guy should be more observant and not have his hat hanging over his eyes. You never know who might be lurking about.
Carl R about 9 years ago
No one disputes that Saddam was working on, or attempting to have WMD. Really the only question is whether any of them were usable, or a genuine threat. Here’s an example of a article from a liberal new source that confirms that they existed, but debunks the importance of the news by confirming that Saddam’s nuclear material was not sufficiently refined for fission, and could only have been used for a “dirty bomb”, and that his chemical weapons were degraded or of poor quality, and thus not usable: http://tinyurl.com/oggshfm
Since the weapons clearly existed, but were not really dangerous, that allows both sides to spin the news their direction. One side ignores the fact that they existed at all and says “there were no WMD”, when really the truth is that there actually were WMD, but they weren’t operational. The other side points to the materials and says, “see, there were WMD”, and ignores that they weren’t operational. The truth is somewhere in between.
In the end, if we take the middle road, we are left with the question of how accurate our information was. Clearly we knew, and knew correctly, that Saddam wanted to have WMD, and was trying to have them. Did the government know that his WMD were useless, and lie, saying that they were useful? Or, did we genuinely (but incorrectly) think they were useful? Or, while they weren’t useful at the time, might they have become useful if we had done nothing? There are questions I can not answer, but I think that in the end they are the correct questions.
neverenoughgold about 9 years ago
Quit playing with your food…
Terry Foreman about 9 years ago
After looking at the comments (which I feel are WAAY to serious for a comic strip), I want to return to the pun. The dinosaurs should find and eat the reporters editor. After all: readers digest, writers cramp!
neverenoughgold about 9 years ago
I’m thinking of grilling some Brontosaurus burgers tomorrow! Anyone care to stop over? If you do, it’s BYOB (Bring Your Own Brontosaurus)…
Carl R about 9 years ago
I tend to agree with neither party. I was not a fan of invading Iraq, but I understand why it happened. On the day after 9/11, I made two predictions. The first was “That is the end of Iraq as we know it”. The second is “It will end up a mess. They have been fighting in the Middle East for 6000 years, and they will still be fighting there after we leave. Nothing we can do will change that, and there is nothing to be accomplished putting ourselves in the middle of it.” Did we make things worse by intervening? No doubt. Did we make things worse when we left abruptly. Probably. Was there something we could have done that would have worked better? I doubt it. The best thing we can do is to manage our energy policy in a way that avoids dependence on the Middle East, and then stay out of it.