[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The AP is reporting the news. How the Internets respond to the news is a different thing.

The reporters for the AP report "the news" they select to report. There's a lot of "news" the AP does not report. As far as responding to what they do report, it often starts with how the AP reporters respond to their own reports--that is, what they leave out, in what way they present what they report , and hidden spin such as choice of words which give certain shades of meaning. A great deal of reportage is what has traditionally been called "slanting" the news. How anyone responds to "news" reports depends on their own slanted views, the information they have which is not included in the reports, and how they can use the reports to further agendas they may have. Add to all this, the errors, incompetence, and twisted facts (lies) in many "reports," the responses to them can be so varied, and full of the same lack of "objectivity" that AP "reports" and internet "responses" may not be so different in nature.

The OP referred to "imaginary WMD's". If the UN knew about this and didn't see a significant threat and multiple US investigations knew about this and didn't see a significant threat...how could these represent valid WMD's?

What the UN "knows" is full of even more agenda driven slanting, and willful lack of information than the AP. Its "investigations" are not worth the trust its willing accomplices and the uninformed people of the world give it. What it sees as no significant threat often transforms into wars, and genocides. Its political decisions are always colored by opposing parties with different agendas. That it, or some national security agency, considers that it would be difficult to use the materials for WMD's inspires the question "what difficulty do the terrorists not try to overcome?" Don't they take whatever small opportunity, whatever inch they are given, to expand their influence and spread terror? Didn't the U.S. government at one time consider Al Qaeda to be reduced to insignificance? That the Middle East no longer needed U.S. muscle to push back terrorism, that leading from behind would lead to the reduction and even demise of "radical" Islam? And to a restoration of respect for the US and its influence?

The Middle East is in flames. Respect for and influence of the US there and in much of the rest of the world is at a low point.

Didn't our State Dept. consider Benghazi secure and not a hotbed of terrorism and Al Qaeda on the run and no threat there . . . before the attacks on our diplomatic mission.

On what basis are we to have faith in "multiple US investigations"?

Were these the WMD's used to justify the Iraq war? Is that what Beans is saying?

-spence

I don't know. I was just yanking your chain.