I just don't get this.

[Yonkers]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3ir.htm

First off how did the Washington Post come by this imformation and secondly WHY ARE THEY PRINTING IT!? When it comes to national security the liberal media only cares about one damn thing, GET BUSH! F the Washington Post. Why does the media feel the need to divuldge military secrets that are in progress. They have done this time and time again since Bush took office. I am really wondering whos side the liberal media is on.

[Cruel_Logic]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3ir.htm

First off how did the Washington Post come by this imformation and secondly WHY ARE THEY PRINTING IT!? When it comes to national security the liberal media only cares about one damn thing, GET BUSH! F the Washington Post. Why does the media feel the need to divuldge military secrets that are in progress. They have done this time and time again since Bush took office. I am really wondering whos side the liberal media is on.

Normally this would be a big deal. But honestly, who didn't already know this was going to happen?

[Yonkers]

Normally this would be a big deal. But honestly, who didn't already know this was going to happen?
You are correct but I hope you understand my point. They do this all the time and who is leaking this stuff? That is what pisses me off.

[intercede007]

Yonkers has a good point.

Honestly, the "news" that we have Predator drones flying over Iran is moot. We probably have a satelite or two making flyby's of the country ever couple of hours.

From CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/13/iran.intel/index.html) : "Three senior U.S. military officials disputed the article Sunday, but two well-placed U.S. government sources confirmed it, saying that the overflights have indeed been taking place."

Now two things. First of all, any person posting in this forum who backed up their topic with "..two secret sources have told me so" would be laughed off of the information superhighway. It just doesn't cut it for us.

Secondly, what is in it for these "sources"? It can't possibly be money; if they are that "high(ly) placed", it would be nearly impossible for them to accept cash bribes. You have to ask yourself, what do these people want?

Journalists know lots of people, and rubbing journalists the right way can get you places further on down the road; say during an administration change. So to me, not only is a non quotable source a suspect source, it is a source that has questionable motives.

So, while the logic of the news article is obvious to anybody with 2 brain cells, the integrity of the article (and any article, to me, that names an un-named source) is woefully inadequate.

[Ninjaman09]

It still seems extremely subversive for the paper to even print it in the first place. I don't understand what point they were trying to make.

[intercede007]

It still seems extremely subversive for the paper to even print it in the first place. I don't understand what point they were trying to make.

Just that they can.

I imagine their common sense is bankrupt, but after that, saber rattling perhaps?

You know, like, "We know what your doing, and we aren't going to let you get away with it"?

Anybody who knows that a U-2 and an SR-71 are not just names of bands and has watched more than 10 seconds of the Discovery Channel knows we have probably been doing this stuff for a hell of a lot longer than a year.

But yeah, I really don't know what the point is :confused:

[Blacklash]

The aren't trying to make a point. Most "news" today is about what will draw the most attention and stir the pot. It is about getting a name for yourself and more so, profit. It is sad to say there is not a single decision made in this country involving money or maximizing profit that factors in often far reaching consequences for those decisions.

It doesn't surprise me at all. It does never fail to disappoint me though.

[Ninjaman09]

Anybody who knows that a U-2 and an SR-71 are not just names of bands and has watched more than 10 seconds of the Discovery Channel knows we have probably been doing this stuff for a hell of a lot longer than a year.
Yeah, it's kind of an unspoken common knowledge. Of course we all know we spy on other countries, probably more than we are even thinking, but we don't talk about it. I'm sure Iran, North Korea, and any other country in the world is aware to some degree that we're watching them.
Most "news" today is about what will draw the most attention and stir the pot.
This pretty much sums up my view on it.

[saturnotaku]

The aren't trying to make a point. Most "news" today is about what will draw the most attention and stir the pot. It is about getting a name for yourself and more so, profit.

Sad, but true. It seems like the only news outlets who actually care about the news and the truth are those on a smaller scale - eg the community weeklies like the one I work for. Not that I mind because we're an extremely profitable enterprise, but that's because we're strong at what we do and that is simply to report the news. No sensationalism, just the facts.

[Yonkers]

This article is the same as the other articles that have been printed in the last couple of years wrt to national security operations, they hate Bush. This is just another way for them to embarass, create contraversy and object to president Bush. That is the reason why this would even be considered, purely political.