Why the U.S. Press Wouldn't Visit Downing Street

[Imagevision]

The Downing Street Memo paints President Bush in an even more unfavorable light than the money trail Woodward and Bernstein followed in the '70s – it proves undeniably that the tens of thousands of deaths in Iraq were for naught. It proves Bush is a war criminal more interested in the urban legend that Saddam tried to whack his daddy than in trying to keep American infrastructure from collapsing.

I can understand why the hearings were broadcast on CSPAN-3 – the president obviously wanted this downplayed as much as possible. But news outlets? Their reputations are already in the toilet after repeated flubbings of facts, plagiarism and attention to infotainment at the expense of actual news. Regardless of what they might lead us to believe, the media rely on people to buy it or watch advertisements. With declining ratings and readerships, how much of a profit margin are the executives willing to give up just to curry favor with the gang of thugs and miscreants in charge?
http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/0876_why_us_press_visit_downing_street.html

[wli]

1. because they're nothing but right-wing propagandists

[firefox]

2. It's not like Bu$h's war was the biggest blunder ever.

I mean besides politically, economically, and militarily. If you remove those factors from Bu$h's illegal war, it may not be the biggest blunder in US history.

[pretzel4gore]

3. it's all about buying time

they want to buy years, and do, months, they do, days? yes, the can... minutes? if necessary, they'll do something to buy a few more minutes distraction...seconds? i doubt they've felt death that close yet, but if they do, you can be sure there's a button cheney will push....