All the news fit to print, four years ago.

[idrankwhat 0]

How many people in this forum think this is "news"?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387.html

[NCclimber 0]

Seems pretty cut and dried. It's news.

Why do you think anyone would not consider it news?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Seems pretty cut and dried. It's news.

Why do you think anyone would not consider it news?

Because it's very old news. Regardless, I will admit that I like to see it in print. I was wondering if the Dems were going to finally get back to this issue now that Pat Roberts is not obstructing it anymore. Maybe this will finally get that second part of the 9/11 commission investigation rolling again.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Seems pretty cut and dried. It's news.

Why do you think anyone would not consider it news?

Because it's very old news.

I thought it was about an official report released by the Pentagon, this week.

While it addresses actions (or attitudes) from four years ago, it seems to be the first official statement/investigation on the matter.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Seems pretty cut and dried. It's news.

Why do you think anyone would not consider it news?

Because it's very old news.

I thought it was about an official report released by the Pentagon, this week.

While it addresses actions (or attitudes) from four years ago, it seems to be the first official statement/investigation on the matter.

But the fact that the VP and the office of special plans were concocting their own intelligence in the lead up to the war is not news. And if anyone missed the link, Feith is/was also another PNAC player.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

But the fact that the VP and the office of special plans were concocting their own intelligence in the lead up to the war is not news.

Was that part of the scope of this study?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Quote

But the fact that the VP and the office of special plans were concocting their own intelligence in the lead up to the war is not news.

Was that part of the scope of this study?

When Congress authorized the 9/11 commission investigation the Democrats wanted the study to include how the executive branch was involved in the dissemination of the intelligence. The R's promised that they'd do it as a second and separate study and that they'd get to it right after the 2004 election. After the election Pat Roberts stalled, then basically stated that he wasn't going to do it. He's been catching flack from the Dems because of it and he apparently relented allowed a part of the investigation to go forward.

edited to add: Actually, after further reading, this is starting to look like a different investigation into the same thing that the intelligence committee was supposed to address. Developing......

[NCclimber 0]

Thanks for the info on that.

The point I'm trying to make is this report is a pretty big deal. It's on the front page of the USA Today, LA Times and NYT web sites. It's an official finding on what many people have claimed for four years.

You seem intent on making it about "too little, too late" or focusing on what it doesn't cover.

How about making a big deal about something, that in my opinion, is a big deal?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Thanks for the info on that.

The point I'm trying to make is this report is a pretty big deal. It's on the front page of the USA Today, LA Times and NYT web sites. It's an official finding on what many people have claimed for four years.

You seem intent on making it about "too little, too late" or focusing on what it doesn't cover.

How about making a big deal about something, that in my opinion, is a big deal?

I do think it's a big deal and I have thought so for quite some time. And I really am quite happy that some of this stuff is seeing the light of day, again. I suppose my issue with this is that it's just one more example of how the media failed to do its job in the lead up to the war. The Office of Special Plans, who was involved and what it was doing were reported but then somehow forgotten when it was time to write the next story or have the talking head read it off the teleprompter. So yea, I'm happy that this big deal will get some airplay but even in this, what should be, "I told you so moment" of satisfaction I still can't help but be perturbed by the lousy work that the "liberal" media puts out. We'll see if things are changing. I'll wait to see if this story eclipses the Pelosi non-story before I lighten my views on the media's ability to do their job.