The Discovery Channel needs to keep better company

Watching a documentary on the Discovery Times Channel about why intelligence fails.

They're talking about Iraq now. Some talking head who used to occupy a high-ranking position in the national security community just said that "any marginally informed person" would have known that it was absurd that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden would have had anything to do with each other before the American invasion- and that the invasion opened a country up to Al Quaeda that wasn't open before.

This, despite the overwhelming and unchallenged evidence that Zarqawi was active in Iraq for years before the invasion- and the captured documents detailing conversations between Saddam's regime and Al Quaeda about "an operational partnership."

I guess it's the brazenness of the lies that really astounds me. But what can one expect from an enterprise involving a newspaper willing to blow a classified intelligence operation in time of war?

I enjoy The Discovery Channel, and I hope it severs its relationship with The New York Times before that relationship costs it all credibility.

Comments

Anonymous said…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200908,00.html
Thanks for that link. Further evidence of just how brazen the lies we keep hearing about how little Saddam supposedly had to do with security threats to the United States really are. But when you control the MSM, you largely control what people get to know, don't you?