CoalTrain-I said slanted,it was the tenor of the article,some examples-Fisk,compares Guantanamo with POW's,when they aren't POW's at Gitmo,and goes on to call it hypocritical of the U.S. to accuse the Iraqi's of violating the Geneva Convention,opinion.Another- "there were plenty of us writing that this was going to be a disaster and a catastrophe and that they were going to take casualties."-again,opinion-and not only him,but Jeremy Scahill as well with the "many American casualties" comment.I think his true feelings though come out in this statement- "and I think that, to a considerable degree, the American administration allowed that little cabal of advisors around Bush- I'm talking about Perle, Wolfowitz, and these other people--people who have never been to war, never served their country, never put on a uniform- nor, indeed, has Mr. Bush ever served his country- they persuaded themselves of this Hollywood scenario of GIs driving through the streets of Iraqi cities being showered with roses by a relieved populace who desperately want this offer of democracy that Mr. Bush has put on offer-as reality." Now,if you can't hear Fisks political leanings in that statement,your deaf.When I read an article on the war,I don't expect to see Paul Begala type comments interjected,I know this was an interview,so maybe I should cut him some slack,but the bias is so obvious-(one more,speaking about the Bush administration)-"In their attempt to dream up an excuse to invade Iraq",jmo,but that is bias,slant,whatever you want to call it,and I think it detracts from his reporting,no matter how well respected he is,don't forget,his respect from his peers,is others who are overwhelmingly liberal in their point of view also(his peers).
AI
