3 ms·
> Because the factuality of the story seems like a pretty big deal here. WMD were non-factual, but even so nobody got censored back then (worse, nobody went to
by paganel 6y ago
> Because the factuality of the story seems like a pretty big deal here.
WMD were non-factual, but even so nobody got censored back then (worse, nobody went to prison for going to war on non-factual information).
- evan_ 6y agoI’m not sure what you’re arguing for. If we had ignored everyone claiming there were WMDs then a million people would still be alive, not to mention the trillions of dollars saved.
- paganel 6y agoI'm saying that the press was more than happy to publish non-factual information back in March-April 2003 and that no-one thought of censoring it.
- sylens 6y agoSo they should never learn from their mistakes?
- jimmydorry 6y agoDid they learn from their mistakes? Or are we just in election season operating with "special rules"?
- odessacubbage 6y agothey did learn from their mistakes. they learned that there's zero consequence in trafficking the right lies for the right people and were professionally rewarded for doing so. it should be no surprise that the exact same people latched so heavily onto the steele dossier and the cult of mueller-ism
- takeda 6y agoWMD information was provided by government officials and it was official government position on it, the news were reporting what officials said and provided. This is not even remotely close.