Why does the media let Jr get away with this?

[shockingelk]

Dear Leader said to the UN, 'When we say 'serious consequences,' for the sake of peace, there must be serious consequences. And so a coalition of nations enforced the just demands of the world."

What were the demands being enforced? That Hussein let inspectors in? That he was producing and stockpiling WMD?

What the hell is he claiming he was enforcing?

[21winner]

1. What did the media report?

Do you have a link?

[KC21304]

2. It is what the media is not reporting.

It is not reporting that the President of the US got up in front of the UN Assembly and the entire TV audience and disgraced us, AGAIN.

[flpoljunkie]

3. Bush likes to pretend that the inspectors did not have access in Iraq.

In fact, they did, and when they asked for an additional 30 days, he said no dice, we're taking Saddam out--just as he bragged in March, 2002, "F--- Saddam, we're taking him out."

http://cnn.allpolitics.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+First+Stop%2C+Iraq+-+Mar.+24%2C+2003&expire=-1&urlID=5798268&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2003%2FALLPOLITICS%2F03%2F24%2Ftimep.saddam.tm%2F&partnerID=2001

First Stop, Iraq

By Michael Elliott and James Carney


How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda --and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order

"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies. Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.

The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room. A year later, Bush's outburst has been translated into action, as cruise missiles and smart bombs slam into Baghdad. But the apparent simplicity of his message belies the gravity at hand. Sure, the outcome is certain: America will win the war, and Saddam will be taken out. But what is unfolding in Iraq is far bigger than regime change or even the elimination of dangerous weapons.

The U.S. has launched a war unlike any it has fought in the past. This one is being waged not to defend against an enemy that has attacked the U.S. or its interests but to pre-empt the possibility that one day it might do so. The war has turned much of the world against America. Even in countries that have joined the "coalition of the willing," big majorities view it as the impetuous action of a superpower led by a bully. This divide threatens to emasculate a United Nations that failed to channel a diplomatic settlement or brand the war as legitimate.

more...

[shockingelk]

4. Yes, that "taking him out" ...

That was reported in May 2002, before the inspections, before the invasion ...

Since then, in July 2003 and with Kofi Annan at his side, bush claimed

"And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

Speculation that Bush is insane deserves coverage in the major media, not just capitalhilblue and the blogosphere ... the guy claimed Hussein wouldn't let inspectors in!

And continues claim he was responding to Hussein's defiance ...

[pa28]

6. Stunning

No coverage at all in the major media. I guess with the possible exception of CBS news we now have a state controlled press. Once Rather and Redstone are gone we may as well put the rest of it under one roof and call it "Pravda".

[meow2u3]

5. The same reason the media let him get away with everything else

The craporate execs want to see Bush in office, and damn the Constitution--and the truth, for that matter.
They're of the mindset that the ends wholly justify the means.