Leftwing crackpots, of course.

That wasn't where I was going, but I guess you got the point. I haven't noticed the public outcry over Rev. SYM's editorial manipulation of the UPI.

Is public outcry the bar something must hurdle before it becomes a legitimate concern?

It is one of many. I personally would never use one indicator as a measuring stick to determine what was and was not a legitamite concern. Much as how I wouldn't automatically redflag any piece of text from UPI because of the moonies.

I found that while searching for an article published in either Time or Newsweek in December concerning an extensive poll in Iraq. The Moonie article conformed with my remembrance of the other article so I copied it.

Like Mr Doe says, I sure as heck don't trust a single source for all my news. What I like is multiple sources, especially if I am skeptical of the source or the report. It seems that you (Sr Peroxide) are skeptical of both so I think we would all benefit.
Here ya go. DEC 19TH ISSUE OF TIME.

DOWNLOAD A PDF HERE. http://www.ericumansky.com/2005/12/time_poll_iraqi.html

Read'em and weep.

B

Weep for what you reap
 

World Public Says Iraq War Has Increased Global Terrorist Threat

New WPO Poll: Iraqi Public Wants Timetable for US Withdrawal, But Thinks US Plans Permanent Bases in Iraq Half of Iraqis Approve of Attacks on US Forces, Including 9 Out of 10 Sunnis

In the first instance, none of them vote here or in Iraq. let them ***** and whine.

In the second instance the polls focus on a single aspect or facet of the war. Looks like a reasonable analysis but is not especially informative concerning the larger aspects of life in Iraq. have you read the Time poll I linked?

It gives a much broader view of Iraq and it is Moonie-Free! Unless Time has joined Moon. Maybe so.

Bot

PS Great site. Thanks for the link.

Iraq as a society was not at the same stage as the American patriots of 1770 were. There were differences among early Am. Pats. but nothing on the order of the Sunni/Shia split.

It's odd that an old culture like Iraq would seem more primitive than the American colonies of 1770. The founders were standing on centuries of European social evolution and had been recently freed somewhat from social strictures.

Once more, a nod to Pat Buchanan:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49030

Invading Iraq, Bush was assured that peoples of a far different culture and creed with a brutal history of subjugation and submission would quickly adapt to democracy. Yet, it took the European Christians centuries.

History, that great antidote to ideology, could have taught Bush otherwise. But the neocons told him we have reached "The End of History," that free-market democracy is the future everywhere.

I don't think (if I may presume to speak perhaps for them for a minute) that anyone feels that Saddam's behavior was in any way acceptable, at any time.

The question is whether or not our armed intervention could have actually moved the bundle of human nerve endings we call "the Iraqi people" into a more sane and sober state of governance such that the next leader they produce from their bowells is more sane than Saddam.

I think the cause was lost when we went in. Colin Powell had a premonition: "You break it, you own it."

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a87...usmemories.gif