Bush discusses bombing Al Jazeera

http//www.cnn.com/...
http//e/...

They've been attacked twice before in the past, which the US military chopped up to accidental - which raises a few questions other than crushing dissent, like how many other $1 million accidents have they made with attacks on civlians?

This being revealed at the same time that Cheney and Bush are calling dissent unpatriotic and hurtful to the war is something that shouldn't be dropping off the front page. And yet, it is.

And I quote, "the tabloid said Bush was angered by the network's coverage of the uprising in the western Iraqi city of Falluja." Let me read part of that again, "the tabloid said"...

Common, not only do I doubt the validity of their claims I also support the destruction of a newstation that claims Jews use Muslims and Christian childrens' blood to make matzo balls.

And I quote, "The newspaper reported that two people have been charged with violating British secrecy laws in connection with its release."

The fact that the newspaper has been threatened with legal action is on the cover of every British newspaper. Yeah, sweep it under the rug, it's just tabloid bullshit. Justification after denial after defense mechanism after defense mechanism. Sad.

>>3
Tabloids like mixing sensationalized half truths with complete BS about batboys, satan being seen in fires, and martian pets. For all you know they could've been charged with releasing the names of British agents. Go ahead and jump to conclusion though, it just makes people shake their head when you speak.

>>4
You see how easy it is?

Just rationalize it, tell yourself that a meeting between two national leaders would have the names of undercover agents in it, that leaked documents never reveal anything of value, that a government agent declaring that he was acting out of moral obligation is just a traitor looking for attention. Sleep easy, patriot.

>>5
My assumption is just as valid as yours. The fact is that you don't know what's going on and you've reached a truth all of your own, one that involves conspiracy between those with more power than you. I will sleep easy, nights are peaceful without paranoia.

>>6
What you're assuming is exactly what they expect every American like you to assume: that any given proof is baseless and typical anti-Bush propaganda, and nothing beyond that.

What I assume is based upon past evidence and the word of a government whistleblower. It's likely that your assumption will prevail because as you said, nights are peaceful in comformity.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1887815,00.html

| Sources who have seen the documents say that it is clear the discussion on bombing al-Jazeera is not serious.

This is nothing new, and far from damning. The United States hates Al Jazeera, as has been shown in this thread, and even if the document was fully leaked it would change absolutely nothing other than Scott McLellan getting angry during two questions of a 5-minute press conference.

What this topic addresses is the gross state of denial United States citizens are in, and how far gone the media is. Not much to address, really. Just another drop in the bucket of shame.

>>7
The problem is that no one gives "proof". I see circumstantial evidence backed by massive conspiracy theories and plausability kicks in. Then what do I assume? That the source is full of stupidity and paranoia.

>>9
Is this really what the world has come to? Are we so conditioned to disbelieve anything not fully supported by the world's governments and their medias that it's striked as a conspiracy theory because it was silenced before it could be fully released?

I don't jump on the back of just any 'bush punching bag' just because it exists. The amount of evidence of violence and abuse against the press in Iraq is staggering, and you're throwing the whole thing out because a tabloid dropped it? The information is proven to be leaked by two UK government sources, has been quoted to be true by two anonymous government sources. This is also the first time that the UK has used their secrecy act to silence something, even after the dozens of leaks that occurred across the UK in the duration of the war.

Is it indifference to the plight of the free press in Iraq, or are you making a genuine effort to deny all sure evidence that Bush said this? Massive conspiracy theories? That's like calling another abuse scandal leak a paranoia dream because there's no images and official documents to back it up. You people are retarded. If you hate Iraq just say so, but don't dance around the fucking bush.

>>10
Yes.  Because why would the governments lie?

>>10
I want "proof", not more rhetoric. Its not the truth simply because someone writes it on a piece of paper and prints it. Of course this is all just 'cited from the secret memo'. No one would dare actually show the memo itself. You have proof, you have evidence, blah blah blah blah blah. Show it or shutup.

>>12
you'll get your proof. just wait 60 years for the apologetic history books to come out, long after anyone that could be held accountable is dead and can't make the truth illegal anymore.

>>13

Yes, at this rate history books will tell tales of the brave liberals who liberated Iraq from the iron clutches of the evil Bush.