Opinions Section

Based on the popularity of our new Opinions section, many of you have already seen it. But, in case you have not, here's the editor's note we posted when we launched back in late August:

You may have noticed some changes in the section of washingtonpost.com devoted to editorials, commentary and reader feedback -- starting with the way it looks and what we call it.

We've added an "s" to the section formerly known as Opinion. It's now Opinions -- a name intended to reflect the site's commitment to including a variety of viewpoints on important issues, in addition to the editorial positions of The Washington Post and the thinking of its columnists and Sunday Outlook contributors.

In keeping with that commitment, we're launching a number of new features.

Your Post will collect the most thoughtful and interesting user comments from around washingtonpost.com and publish them throughout the day. The Debate will take on a single controversial issue over the course of each week, analyzing and linking to what's being said by all sides as the issue develops. Toles vs. Toles will feature an extra Web-only sketch most weekdays by Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist Tom Toles.

In Think Tank Town, former presidential spokesman Ron Nessen will focus on the agendas and ideas that emerge from the scores of policy institutes in the business of influencing Washington's policy makers. And in Reporting for Duty, washingtonpost.com employee and Army National Guard officer Bert Stover will offer a personal account of his upcoming deployment overseas and a soldier's perspective on the Iraqi conflict.

We've also made some major changes in the way we display Opinions, offering a more visual presentation of each day's report and an archive of the past week's top items. Links to the best Opinions features will highlighted on the site's home page and updated throughout the day.

We hope you'll find Opinions useful and provocative, and a valuable contributor to the Internet's open and free exchange of ideas. We'd also like your feedback. Please send comments and complaints to opinions@washingtonpost.com.

By Jim Brady |  November 22, 2005; 1:21 PM ET  | Category:  Content
Previous: Technorati Links | Next: washingtonpost.com Blogs

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



I wonder if the mother of all conspiration theories is not the one that did draw a line of causality between 9/11 and Saddam...

That conspiration theory had probably taken roots in the fear - that raw irrational cowardice all humans feel in front of a lethal danger - that was fostered by repeated allegations that Irak was stockpiling WMDs.

Intentional or not, these allegations were a build up - but there was nothing new in that, nothing that could have changed the course of traditionnal US foreign policies.

The Saddam-Qeida link was the conspiration theory that shifted the lines.

Now that all evidences show that Iraki WMD stockpiles were a pure allegation - a widely shared phantasm - a new conspiration theory is raising up: it asserts that the reason WMDs were not found in Irak is that they were looted in the aftermath of the Irak invasion.

In short, that the rational that led to Irak invasion caused precisely what was feared the most.

There is no limit to non-sense, and the building-up of this son of the mother of all conspiration theories is clearly intentional: it is obviously forged to keep our fear level high enough after Iraki WMDs didn't materialize.

High enough - but for what purpose exactly?

The theory was shifted but not the intentions.

In post 9/11 area, these theories are not only leading to the Middle-East. They are also shifting our domestic lines, as most Western democraties are now limiting civil rights in the name of a so-called war against terror.

A war against our civil rights would be a more pertinent name - and I wonder what will remain of Western countries civil rights at the end of this actual Presidency.

And if we were still free enough to choose a conspiration theory, then the following one would be my favorite: there are obvious shared interests between the terrorists and the anti-terror back roomers. They are both talking the same language - that Western democracies are too liberal.

But that's hardly a conspiration theory, since facts are proving days after days that Democracy is shrinking progressively under the combined strikes of terrorists and the anti-terror replies.

The irony is that our civil rights are cut back in order to spread Democracy across the Middle-East...

Posted by: Patrick Perroud | November 26, 2005 05:28 AM

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist but in the case of Bush versus Iraq, no doubt at all that conspiracy took place and is still taking place.

The irrational reaction of Cheney to Representative Murtha's call to pull our troops from Iraq is sorely ugly and unnecessary. In Murtha we have a man who served his country honorably in Vietnam and has served Congress just as honorably. Yet we have the extremist turncoats who never donned a US military uniform assassinating the character of this man for telling the truth.

Murtha is 100 percent correct in that American presence in Iraq is more damanging than helpful. It isn't possible to train Iraqi military to protect themselves when we're there doing it for them. Moreover, our being there is resented by all factions of Iraqis.

Iraq is the responsibility of its people. Without inteferrence from other countries it will be compelled to help itself.

Bush, Inc. spouts off about victory and defeat. This war is not a matter of win or lose; it is and has always been about how the game is played. It was begun in gross dishonor with a BIG lie. It had to be...for one man's mistaken and devious agenda. Our president closed his ears to his own advisors'advice to secure the nation's borders prior to all-out war. He ignored it, thus Iraq became a hellhole no countries are able to control.

Indeed, our troops should be brought home before more are slaughtered for reasons none of us are privy to. The most we know for sure is that the war is not about democratizing Iraq. As a freedom and democracy loving people, we must stand up to President George W. Bush and demand that he bring the troops home. As we are informed by our Constitution, the people are the power, and those we elect to guide us are our servants.

If we notice, Bush nor Cheney has mentioned the name, bin Laden, for too long. I contend that if Bush had wanted to kill or capture this terrorist, he would have long before now. The Saudi kings and the Bushes have been as thick as thieves for many years. They even kiss and hold hands! That Saudi royalty disowned and disinherited one of their own is nothing more than propaganda, and Bush knows it. In capturing bin Laden, the Saudis might call in their IOUs and overnight, America would become a third world country.

Truth hurts. And the truth and nothing but the truth concerning our leadership and Iraq is the primary aspect of the whole sorry scerario Americans must dig out. Bush, Inc. deceived Congress. They deceived the people with lies we fell for and it has resulted in the deaths of over 2,000 of our own and an estimated 30,000 innocent Iraqis. We must get to the truth for history tends to repeat itself and this particular turn of events cannot be duplicated by any electee down the road.

Posted by: Sylvia Barksdale Morovitz | November 27, 2005 04:48 PM

I can't read most of the blogs; to add to the difficulty prsented by eensy type, a whole section of the piece about Opinions is in Italics, making it even lighter than the Roman face. What is with this?
I can't read what I'm typing here, either, so if there are typos, that's why. Jeez!

Posted by: Melissa Dodworth | November 28, 2005 08:08 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company