KaskadskyjKozak

The above comment exemplifies the arrogance of the left-wing elitists of this country. Rather than accept that the average person has weighed the alternatives, listened to the arguments, and made a rational choice, you characterize a conclusion that you yourself have not made as being done out of emotion or stupidity. You need to overcome your delusions of superiority, and accept that people aren't as stupid as you think. I can assure you that most people I know who support the war do not do so our of "fear", but out of rational consideration of the reality of the threats we face. I do not fear terrorists, I oppose them. They have my attention and determination to eradicate their ilk. I view them in historical context as an analogous phenomenon to fascism of the 20th century. Just as Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo needed to be eliminated, so do the Islamo-Fascists. If you refuse to counter this point of view with anything other than "your are stupid" or "you fear terrorists", then you will not persuade anyone with a modicum of intelligence - and that includes the American electorate in its totality.

This is a discussion forum, not an academic journal. How magnaminous of you. I question the biases of the organization that made this evaluation, and the criteria they used to define 'skeptical' and 'critical'. I also question the time frame over which the evaluation was performed, and what the 68 sources were. I will not accept what is written in this document as accurate and legitimate just because it is posted on a web-site, or because YOU think it has merits. It will take a lot more than that to convince me that my own personal impressions of the three networks - ABC, CBS, and NBC plus CNN were incorrect. I noted that each had copious amounts of negative criticism and skepticism of the war - before, during, and after it took place. I saw it daily for myself. And there was enough to give me the overall impression that they all held a biased, anti-war position, not the other way around.

Preceding the war there were no "embedded" journalists. I'm talking about the pre-war criticism and doubts raised on the major networks. During the war itself there was still a constant level of criticism, it was just mixed with the reporting on the execution of the war itself. Following the fall of Baghdad, it was readily audible again. You could prove all my assertions by viewing past broadcasts and counting the number of comments that could be construed as challenging or critisizing the war and compare that to those that praised it. But none of these facts would matter to you as your pinko-colored glasses would never allow it. The news must be 100% condemnatory of the Iraq war for you and your like-minded radicals to be satisfied.

I guarantee that your concern for "countless thousands of Iraqis" is just a convenient rhetorical device for your anti-Bush rhetoric. Just how much did you think about the "countless thousands" who died every year under Saddam? Answer: not a whit. Just as you told occupy your mind with those under threat of starvation in Sudan today, or elsewhere around the globe - past or present. As for the 1,000 dead U.S. soliders, one must ask how many innocent Americans would have died if we did not take the fight to the terrorists, and waited instead for the next domestic attack like helpless sheep waiting for their slaughter (the Kerry strategy). Impossible to know, so you can throw out the figure of "1,000" without contradiction along with claims of the big "lie" about WMD. Well, Sir, some of us know our history and have longer memories than you think. We contemplate the relative costs and benefits of this war compared to those of the past. And we will base our critique of the success of this war not on some number of dead (oh, no, 1000, <wringing of hands>), but on the overall, extremely complex picture. And we will evaluate the "lie" of WMD as well... for many of us saw the geopolitical significance of Iraq, terrorism, and a growing middle-east fanaticism as the primary reason to overthrow Saddam and face these issues head-on. Terrorism and oppression in the Middle East has been festering and must be countered before Islamo-Fascism develops into a world-wide conflict as did depression-era european and far-east fascism.

That's a complete crock. The liberal media made every effort to question, challenge, and criticize Bush's proposals to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions or face military action. They were sure to load up their "discussion panels" and "guests" with Clintonistas and other left-wingers on every news-cast for 9 months - Summer of 2002 through March of 2003. It was a daily barrage of thinly-veiled contradictory bias from the left. The typical fare. And that leads me to the liberal lie that has become their mantra of late - the so called "rush to war". We farted around for 9 months, trying to work with the inept and impotent UN, giving Iraq plenty of time to hide, export or dispose of their weapons as well as prepare for a war. If anything we waited too long.

Lest us forget, Rather went out of his way to undermine America's foreign policy prior to the war, when he flew to Baghdad and did a softball, sympathetic interview with Saddam himself. Rather is a despicable, biased, traitorous fraud. I relish in his self-destruction. Just desserts.

The data that DDT intefered with reproduction (i.e. thin-shelled eggs of birds) was manufactured and has been recently debunked. Perhaps you should forego the knee-jerk reaction and simplistic one-word ad hominem attack and instead follow up with research and consideration commensurate with the effort Crichton spent to arrive at his conclusions. But that would be too much work. Much better to remain in the comfortable confines of your "religion" and its dogma...

After the election the ballots were counted over and over again by left-leaning journalists who would have loved to show a different outcome. By all standards of counting chads and botched ballots, Bush won. It's high time for you and your ilk to dispense with the disinformation campaign about the 2000 election, and get over your sour grapes. Sore-Loserman indeed.

Wodka? Maybe with Polish transliteration...