Media Memos: Bush-CBS v Blair-BBC -- What does it say about power, the media, and propaganda?

Protecting the American government's freedom to terrorize.The National Guard secretary stated the CBS-Bush memos substantially reflected reality; while the BBC report on David Kay was found to be accurate: WMD reports had been sexed up.

Isn't it surprising that the initial reports, although slightly off, have become the focus, while those who are the subject of the memo, or stand to lose a great deal get away with it.

In my view, the Bush memos in re ANG and the BBC story that WMD-reports had been sexed up were largely true.

The focus of the debate has shifted from "what the information says," to how the information was obtained, or whether there was a minor detail that was incorrect.

The substantial allegations have never been disproven: We have yet to understand, if the CBS memos in re Bush were false, why no defamation against the Secretary?

And we've found no WMD, laying the basis to suggest that the BBC initial report, despite Lord Hutton, was largely correct: There was no basis to be concerned with WMD in Iraq.

It's noteworthy that minor technicalities take on a life of their own and overshadow the continuing government misconduct. Many were involved in the spin, shifting attention from the government flaw to the messenger.

CBS and BBC have seen personnel shake-ups, all the while government accountability is considered irrelevant. You only will have freedom if you choose to preserve and protect it.

Both the US and UK have shown how far they will go to preserve themselves, not the public's sense of government accountability.