I was watching ABC Family a few nights ago when I discovered that Who’s Line is It Anyway? was on right before I went to bed. Right after the second episode of Who’s Line, ABC family became CBN. I am not sure, but I think that stands for the Christian Broadcasting Network. I guess that meaning for the acronym because the show that appeared on my Tv was some 700 Club news program Co-hosted by Pat Robinson. We all know that Pat gives quite a bad name to televangelists everywhere, as if it were possible to give them a worse reputation. He calls for absurd things like taking down Hugo Chavez from power. But they were talking that night about myths involving the War in Iraq and I was intrigued to see what they would say. Some fellow was on who had written a book on the subject and basically made a bunch of claims contrary to what we’ve been hearing in the news. He claims we haven’t been hearing about it because of an agenda that news organizations have to discredit Bush.
The most interesting thing, in my opinion, is that he claimed the exact opposite of what John Kerry claimed, just a few days ago. I know that everyone has their own agenda. You can’t really write a great book unless you claim that everything the public knows is wrong. Kerry is probably going to try to run again for President and wants to show that the war isn’t going well. But can it be possible for both of these men to think they are telling the truth? Kerry says there was no collaboration between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Robinson’s guest says that he has proof Al Qaeda trained in Iraq. Does anyone know what’s going on? How can they both claim this?
I think the answer lies in reading between the lines. When Kerry says that Iraq didn’t help Al Qaeda, he means that the Iraqi government did not officially invite them into their country and allow them a terror-haven like Afghanistan did. What the other guy is saying is that training went on in Iraq, therefore it’s Iraq’s fault. I haven’t read his book, so I’m not sure what details he has to back himself up. However, I think that his argument, as it stands, is not really compelling. Because he is implying that Iraq should know what is going on in its borders. What if someone in the US was training for Al Qaeda, does that mean that the US was complicit in terrorism? Of course not!
What is a little harder to glean is how he claims that the war is going great while others view it with such pessimism. When it comes to a war you are winning or you aren’t winning. Either you’re killing more of them or they’re killing more of you. I think, again that they are not comparing apples to apples. I’ve love for a reporter to just have the guts one day to say – but comparing what the other guy says, do you have numbers to refute that? Because here’s a typical exchange:
“The war is going horribly – people are dying”
“Not so! The war is going great! Schools are being built!”
The second person did nothing to address the points of the first person and it just makes a mockery of the whole idea of having both sides present. If they are going to have a monologue instead of a dialogue, then just have one person at a time – there will be less time wasted with pointless yelling.