Tue, Sep 30, 2014, 4:30 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

The Coca-Cola Company Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • canucanoe1 canucanoe1 Oct 1, 2006 8:27 PM Flag

    State of Denial

    Alpha, you headline chaser you.... lol! It never fails, the headline du jour gets your partisan juices flowing. Let's look at this one. Woodward is a journalistic icon, but also a shamed one. He was a part of the outing of the CIA officer, kept it hidden, didn't tell his editor, the prosecutor, etc. but at the same time had no problem going on any talk show that would take him and state it was a tempest in a teapot! A man of no ethics. I, truthfully, don't know what to make out of his book. It's from a man who feels he is above the law. A man with immense ego. Just how far will he go? Will he travel a truthful path or a sensational one? Yes, I know... for you it doesn't matter who the messenger is. For me... it does and will remain ever so. Woodward is a strawman. For your partisan politics, please get a better actor.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • bigbobbob@sbcglobal.net bigbobbob Oct 27, 2006 10:53 AM Flag

      Not to worry about that CIA leak, Senator Roberts Committee is investigating the leak, my only concern is that all those involved will be dead (of old age) before the good Senator gets his investigation finished and discloses the results.

    • Now that Canoodle has stepped up and admitted he and his NeoHeads lied all along about why we are in Iraq, we can see better just how badly they are doing the job of pacifying Iraq. And as for listening to one;s Generals, it becomes clearer everyday if you are a General, you better be delivering the Administration's Script or, like General Shenseki, you may be asked to leave. Now a British General who told the truth is being forced to reinterpret himself:


      British Army Head Denies Government Rift

      Associated Press Writer

      October 13, 2006, 8:34 AM CDT

      LONDON -- Britain's army chief, who set off a political storm by calling for troops to be withdrawn "soon" from Iraq in part because their presence made the situation worse, said Friday he meant a phased withdrawal over two or three years. He also denied that he was attacking government policy.

      Gen. Richard Dannatt gave a series of interviews after newspapers ran front-page stories interpreting his remarks published Thursday by The Daily Mail as a critique of Prime Minister Tony Blair's policy.

      Dannatt said in the initial interview that the British military should "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems."

      On Friday, he insisted Britain stood "shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, and their timing and our timing are one and the same."

      "We'll probably reduce our soldiers over the course of the next year or two or three -- let's wait and see. That's what I mean by sometime soon," Dannatt said in an interview with Sky News.

      "We don't do surrender. We don't pull down white flags. We're going to see this through," Dannatt said in an interview with British Broadcasting Corp. radio.

      Britain has not set a timetable for the departure of its 7,500 troops from Iraq, but it has handed over security responsibilities in two provinces to Iraqi forces and is preparing to do the same in a third.

      Dannatt said his criticism of postwar planning in Iraq as "poor," and his concerns about troops being stretched by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, had been voiced by others. Retired senior officers have raised those concerns, but they bore more weight coming from a serving officer at Dannatt's level.


    • A Sad Litany of Failures

      By Mortimer B. Zuckerman

      Posted Sunday, October 15, 2006
      Related Links

      * Browse through an archive of columns by Mortimer B. Zuckerman.
      * More from Opinion
      * More from this issue

      How could the American public not be confused about Iraq when our leaders speak of progress but our secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, suffers a triple humiliation, having to circle Baghdad airport for 40 minutes because of mortar and rocket fire, then being helicoptered into the city because driving the deadly bomb-strewn highway is too dangerous, and, finally, having to meet with the Iraqi president in the dark because the power has cut off yet again?

      Nobody was entitled to think the Iraq venture would be roses all the way, given that Saddam Hussein had repressed Iraqis for three decades, depriving the nation of a cadre of local leaders like, say, Hamid Karzai in Kabul. But we had a vision of what might have been achieved. It would not be too much to say it was a noble vision, but it was not one grounded in the hard reality of a fractured, multiethnic society. Saddam held his citizens down by brutality and cunning, not giving religious leaders a key role, as we did, yet subtly balancing religious rivalries one against the other. Shiites account for some 60 percent of Iraq's population, and for them democracy means empowerment. But the Sunnis, who had dominated under Saddam for so long, were never going to accept minority status, and the Kurds were not going to accept anything less than de facto sovereignty, which they obtained after the 1991 Gulf War.

      Occupiers. Alas, whatever chances we may have had to overcome these difficulties have been torpedoed by the breathtaking incompetence of the Bush administration in managing postwar Iraq. Senior officials from the president on down ignored warnings that we might win the war and lose the peace. Gen. Tommy Franks won the battle for Baghdad but seemed to feel that planning for the postwar period was someone else's job. But whose? We sent an inept group of operatives to run Iraq, often appointed because of their political leanings. Whatever support we originally enjoyed there we began to lose when we allowed criminals to rampage. Then the Americans, fabled for their can-do efficiency, failed again and again to deliver electricity, water, and, most critically, security. Today, the violence is estimated by one account to have cost more than 600,000 Iraqis their lives.

      and for the rest of hte story:



    • Canoodle... YOu so live up to your name. You are the worst type of loser. A whining hypcrite of a loser.

      And my how gauling this must be to you. Less than a week after me reminding you that what Clintion said about the Bush WH and Fox News was right on only to be attack by your lame name calling, 'partisan,' among the most respected Washington muckrackers, Woodward, confirms the accusations in spades. Your absolute right, you only dream about such support in the headlines.

      OK... enought waste of time on new. Tell me where to send your next order of crying towels.


      • 2 Replies to azalphainvestor
      • Alpha, I have very clearly presented to you that Woodward thinks he is above the law and journalistic ethics. That he was once an diligent, fact checking, hungry ethical journalist is not challenged. What confuses me is that you continue to use material from ethically challenged individuals. Mr. Woodward today feeds his ego and does as he pleases. That he is compelled to label current leadership as covering up, blind and tunnel visioned while he himself suffers the same in the past 2 years leads me to question why anyone should listen to him... That is, until I saw how headlines get you so juiced up. Let's face it, if it weren't for headlines, you don't think. Hearst and Pulitzer understood, a century ago, that this attribute applies to most of America. Now... look in the mirror... and ask... why don't you? answer below

        Cause they won't tell you that in the headlines! They'll lose their raison d'etre!

      • alph..standing behind clinton & woodward...not surprised i guess

    • bigbobbob@sbcglobal.net bigbobbob Nov 29, 2006 3:05 PM Flag

      We shall see if Woodward was part of the CIA outing of Wilson as soon as Pat Roberts finishes his investigation. I hope that I shall live that long. However, now that the D's are in power, Roberts can say that is the reason his report wasn't completed and issued.

42.66+0.41(+0.97%)4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.