-- On Thu, Apr 10, 2003 at 08:31:14PM -0700, James A. Donald wrote:
You have failed to read the article -- he tells us when he wrote it. Read his article, and fit the timeline of the events he describes, against the timeline of events the other article describes. The time at which he claims to have visited the airport in his account was an hour or two before the attack began in the mainstream account.
Declan McCullagh
You are incorrect. As I said, I read the article. It was reposted from another site and it is anything but clear when it was filed. The New York Times has a timestamp and datestamp;
You do not date it by the datestamp, you date it by the events to which Robert Fisk refers.
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious here
I do not think you have read the article. Here is Fisk's article http://tinyurl.com/995f Here is the mainstream article http://tinyurl.com/9966 They contradict each other. Therefore one or both is lying. Since we now have good cause to believe the mainstream article true, it follows that Robert Fisk is lying.
Don't attribute to malice what can be explained by honest mistakes; and journalists rarely have the full story at the best of times.
Probably Fisk did not know where the American forces were, but he assured the reader, with great confidence, that he did know. He claimed to have confirmed Baghdad Bob's account -- the account of the Iraqi minister of information, an account that events proved to be hilariously false. In this article Fisk claims, claims with enormous confidence and certainty, to confirm a speech by Baghdad Bob that caused much hilarity among those less credulous. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG hUerhSZ4SgYnzK+o+9WY+vpqa2fz5wMLUo5P4mdc 4QTgvRyr+0L2R2DmuDNeXORcSXRqN6x+5NGfxu2AW