Take a look at the latest. London newspapers think they have discovered
a link between Osama and Saddam.
First of all, these 'links' were supposed to be a part of Bush's
rationale for attacking Iraq. If he has them, why doesn't he say so and
why does a London newspaper have to find them?
My point is, it's way to early to make any judgements on all this. Check
the history books twenty years from now when it all shakes out.
And my point is that we may not be able to wait 20 years. In 20 years,
the history books may not be allowed to discuss it. We've already tried
to rewrite our own history books regarding our treatment of the
indigenous peoples of this continent, and about the history of slavery
and African - Americans in this country. In 20 years, most of the
documents about all of this will still be classified.
Besides, I don't think a 20 year wait will help either the victims of
9/11 or the women and children we've killed in Iraq already.
Our rationalizations won't mean anything to them,...or their families.
I say be open to all views but be careful not to put all your eggs in
I'm not sure what this means, Mike, about putting all my eggs in one
basket. I do try to listen to, and examine, all sides, which also means
that I read a lot of media which originates outside the U.S. as well as
from within, and there is a vast difference. Most of our media is so
obviously and pitifully party-line propaganda that the phrase "American
free-press" is almost laughable.