Ya just have to love ole Matt Drudge :)

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Montezuma
Those are reputable.  I would add the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and even the USA Today.  The networks are also acceptable sources.

Unaccetable sources would include The Drudge Report, the LA Weekly, Mother Jones, The Weekly Standard, The Nation, New York Post, Utne Reader, NewsMax, etc.

Sorry, I guess it depends on your point of view. I see the Washington Times as reputable, but the left sees the Washington Post a reputable.  Just about every large city has a left leaning work force, so naturally you're going to see those as "reputable" because A) you agree with most of their editorials and B) they lean towards the politics you believe in.

The NYT is simply the most blatant liberal hogwash I've ever read...they don't report the news, they give an editorial in every story.

Drudge report is a conglomeration of several current news stories from different papers so I'm not sure how you deduct it as being unacceptable.  

Sounds like you've just drawn a "This is Left and this is Right" line down the middle of the media.  I say open your mind up and read all of it, then make the decision yourself, rather than forming the opinion of that "really cool college professor" you had in college.

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by Ripsnort

Sounds like you've just drawn a "This is Left and this is Right" line down the middle of the media.  I say open your mind up and read all of it, then make the decision yourself, rather than forming the opinion of that "really cool college professor" you had in college.

I do read everything, chalk it up to your own lack of sophistication that you didn't recognize any of the left-leaning publications on that short list I would not consider reliable.

[Montezuma]

Originally posted by Syzygyone
Please provide source for the claim that they had found WMD in 1997.  I'm real curious about that.

Thanks

Search Goolgle for UNSCOM.


'What UNSCOM and the IAEA have found (Nov/Dec 1998):

Since 1991, in carrying out its mandate under UN Security Council Resolution 687, the UN Special Commission (UNSCOM) has destroyed, or made harmless, a "supergun"; 48 Scud missiles; 40,000 chemical munitions; 690 tonnes of CW agents; 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals; and biological warfare-related factories and equipment. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) found a nuclear weapons programme far more advanced than suspected, and dismantled it. '

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Montezuma
I do read everything, chalk it up to your own lack of sophistication that you didn't recognize any of the left-leaning publications on that short list I would not consider reliable.

I'd be glad to admit I lack sophistication, however I might add I'll take common sense over sophistication anyday!

[midnight Target]

Senator Kerry said the following in 1997:

"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences.

Ya'll need some reading comp classes.

[AKS\/\/ulfe]

Originally posted by Montezuma
In 1997, Saddam had kicked out the UN inspectors and they had been finding WMD.

In 2003, Saddam allowed the UN inspectors in and they had been finding nothing.

Big difference.  If Matt Drudge is going to write articles about Sen Kerry's statements in 1997, he should put them into perspective by stating what was happening in 1997 and not assume that his ignorant readers will be able to figure it out for themselves.

Even if you had a good point there, intentionally misrepresenting the facts makes your point look pretty stupid.

2002, Saddam kicked out inspectors. 2002, Saddam was faced with a looming threat of war. 2003, Saddam did not allow inspectors in under his own volition. There was indeed a LOT of outside pressure, and he was faced with full cooperation or else.
-SW

[Udie]

and all he had to do was prove that he destroyed them.....

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Montezuma
Those are reputable.  I would add the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and even the USA Today.  The networks are also acceptable sources.

Unaccetable sources would include The Drudge Report, the LA Weekly, Mother Jones, The Weekly Standard, The Nation, New York Post, Utne Reader, NewsMax, etc.

Reputable? I'm not a big Drudge fan, but I don't think he's any more or less reputable than any of the others. Even the WSJ is not above publishing an article to forward their own particular agenda.

[Frogm4n]

hey udie tell me how those strip malls work out when deflation hits.