I just turned in my article on former Iraqi Gen. Sada's claims that Iraq had WMD this afternoon - and now, I see that ConWebWatch has been watching, waiting for the article, expecting a propaganda piece. Oh no. It's too late to retract it now. On the positive side, at least I know someone will be reading the article.
Okay- that was a joke. On the serious side, I am skeptical of any such claims, as I told my editor. I believe it's my job to be skeptical. While Sada was vice marshal of the Air Force at one time, there is no documentation, proof or names available regarding his WMD claims. Also, Sada was not de-briefed by anyone. Why not?
As Sada said, he was stating this information in speeches, until he was convinced by the head ofIntegrity Publishing, a Christian publishing house, to write a book on it. He says he was also convinced by Terry Law, of World Compassion, to write the book.
Well, the interview was 50 minutes, and not all of it can be squeezed into a story, but I will post some more notes on it here later. Other than that, I don't want to spoil the punchline. JJ edited the video to grab some short bytes -since we can only run about 2 minutes on the site. I may post some of the audio later here.
Those who expect a predictable line on WMD from me (or a pro-admin slant regarding other issues), however, have obviously not read my previous reporting on the subject.
Entertainment Update: 2/3
Well, Terry Krepel of ConWebWatch (or ConWebBlog) [insert joke here] has done exactly what I expected. He insists on seeing what is not there, and not seeing what is there. Over half the article was dedicated to information rebutting Sada's claims - information which, along with other challenges, I put to Sada during the interview itself. His responses were included in the 50-minute audio -and the published audio excerpts insisting he's right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong.
Krepel is willfully ignorant and willfully misleading here: a partisan foot soldier in the platoon of one-eyed citizen media critics. It's a shame since he sometimes makes very good points.
Which brings me to polarization: I'm fascinated by the many interlocking gears (on both the right and left) that bet on public ignorance and apathy to forward a corrosive polarization in society -a polarization based on misinformation, not reasoned debate or a researched view. Of course not all polarization is equal, not all agreement is sensible or rational. But we do live in an era where far too many willing purveyors (on both right and left) of irrational polarization based on emotion and there are sadly, many willing buyers.
