> Oh brother ... surely you have a more reputable, honest,
> objective source than 60 Minutes (a product of what
> some now refer to as the "See-BS" network, replete with
> a Castro-hugging communist-embracing Dan Rather (Pics
> upon request))?
>
> Jim

Oh my, the bitterness is strong in this one. Excellent ;-))

It was some time ago so I don't remember the details
of the item, but I was left with an impression of him. I
don't like or dislike him, just aware of him. As others
have pointed out to me off-list, he is either an idiot or
a straight-shooter. Chacun a son gout

I liike to think this is a more neutral news source

www.stratfor.com

but I try to see a step or two past the reported "facts". eg
who's doing the reporting, what are their sympathies, who
they work for, who owns the station etc etc etc. I read an
article recently, apparently backed up by several countries'
intelligence services, that painted an entirely different
picture of the events immediately before, and the reasons
for, the Twin Towers attack. It basically came down to oil,
water and money. Although there is reportedly a new Cold
War to keep the war industry in business (Islam vs The West),
September 11 was not just simply a clash of ideologies

If anyone wants to read the article

http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/joecolquitt/sept11.html

"Beyond the headline coverage of the war against terror
lies a parallel universe of alternative media and analysis"

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.