72.2 F
Saturday, June 3, 2023
HomeOpinionAgain Deroy doesn't give all the 'facts'

Again Deroy doesn’t give all the ‘facts’

Deroy MurdockFor the second week in a row, Deroy Murdock’s spin, otherwise known as a republican talking points, has been published in the local paper with absolutely no opposing view given. In the old days, I just had Cal Thomas to complain about, but at least Molly Ivins was published to counter balance the neo-con Op-ed. But now each week, we, the readers, are blessed with the great unoriginal insight of Deroy Murdock.

This week, Deroy gives the readers certain facts of WMD’s found in Iraq and the subsequent lack of coverage by the “liberal press”. Deroy is out to convince us that over 500 ‘lethal’ WMD’s have been found. These lethal, dangerous weapons were built in 1989, and have been buried for over a decade. Deroy and the newspaper waste 1/5 of the Op-ed page rehashing Peter Hoekstra’s (R-Mich) and Rick Santorum (R-Mich) parading a misleading report of found WMD’s.

Fox News’ Jim Angle contacted the Defense Department who quickly disavowed Santorum and Hoekstra’s claims. A Defense Department official told Angle flatly that the munitions hyped by Santorum and Hoekstra are “not the WMD’s for which this country went to war.”  – Think Progress

Please note that this information was brought up conveniently just prior to the Senate debate about a timetable to exit Iraq. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) said the following: “What worries me is that the intelligence community — Ambassador Negroponte in particular — may be playing a partisan role in the 2006 election.”

Deroy nor the newspaper provided that information. Nor did Deroy or the paper provide these informative quotes on the topic:

David Kay, Former Top US Weapons Inspector – “It (found WMD’s) is less toxic than most things that Americans have under their kitchen sink at this point.” and “And any of Iraq’s 1980s-era mustard would produce burns, but it is unlikely to be lethal.”

Unfortunately for Santorum and Hoekstra, the shells weren’t part of Saddam’s illusory stockpile of WMD. Rather, they were artifacts of the Iran-Iraq war, during which Saddam (helped, incidentally, by the Reagan administration) acquired chemical weapons – The New Republic

Maybe the ‘liberal press’ did not report on the report because it was not news. Who would seem to be the most knowledgeable about WMD’s – Republicans locked in an unpopular war looking for reelection in a few months or the retired top US weapons inspector ? Who do you think has the least likely hood of promoting a not so hidden agenda through promoting this report – Republicans locked in an unpopular war looking for reelection in a few months or the retired top US weapons inspector ?

Again (like last week), I call for readers to let the paper know that we want to read the news, based on all the facts. We want an Op-ed section that is not a platform solely for republican talking points. Demand a real fair and balance presentation of varying opinions that are based on all the facts.

I would like to conclude with a quote from Hoekstra and Santorum’s report, “If the American public can be deceived by people who withhold basic information, we risk losing the war at home, even if we win it on the battlefield.” I think that says it all (by the way Deroy nor the paper used that quote either).


Blayne Clements
Blayne Clements
I am a 30 something graduate from Austin Peay State University, where I graduated in 1997 with two majors (Accounting and Finance). I am a very happily married man, with one beautiful daughter. I enjoy a professional life of public service and a personal life of travel, reading, music, and always trying to learn from others.


  1. It would not surprise me in the least to find out that he’s a propagandist for the Bush Administration. They have paid other journalist in the past. I am sure they are still doing it, just in way that’s easier to hide.

Latest Articles