In this article, you noted "The Post's reputation for helping topple the Nixon administration". At the end of this article, you noted that antiwar voices "have the mistaken impression that somehow if the media's coverage had been different, there wouldn't have been a war."
So, media coverage can help topple a president in the 1970's, yet the same media could not have swayed public opinion and support for a president's policy to go to war in the year 2002-2003, and thereby help stop the war.
Seems to me you can't have it both ways.
Please note that the mainstream media in this country is not currently presenting reasonable voices on why we should leave
Subj: Mr. Cohen's column on 7/29/04
In Mr. Cohen's column "The Wrong Way to Be Right" he made two errors. One is saying that Mr. Bush's approach to allies who happened to disagree with his policies in
Also, Mr. Cohen states that "countless surveys tell us that
I would propose that our policies in the
(Update from 2007: I think we can conclude that the “goal” is not a reduction in conflict and bloodshed, but rather the opposite.)
Subj: The Intelligence Mess
There have been three massive intelligence failures here in the
It is true that the CIA did not have agents on the ground in Iraq after 1998 (maybe Clinton should not have pulled UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq?), but that did not mean that there were no former UN weapons inspectors who had something to say about Iraq and it's WMDs program. Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector, had plenty to say, and what he said about WMDs turned out to be correct. He was ignored by the US Senate. He was ridiculed or ignored by the
Subj: “Precision Attacks”
In the article "Iraqi Interim Council Meets" there is the statement "The U.S. military said it carried out a "precision attack" on members of Zarqawi's group, who earlier in the day had executed and buried a man after pulling him from the trunk of a car south of the city..."
I fail to see how this type of action will bring stability to