Is Fox News Fair and Balanced?

[GonzoLays]

Fox news motto is fair and balanced. Are they blatantly lying to America? I don't care if they tilt to one side of political spectrum my only concern is if they are using a false and manipulative motto to skew the issues presented to the viewers.

Vote!

[freak6]

Yeah, they are totally fair and balanced............. between a neo nazi and a neo con... which are essentially the same.

[baja]

About as much as Tokyo Rose was

[sirhcyennek81]

Considering FoxNews has both liberal and conservative opinion, yes, they are fair and balanced. Of course, if you compare fox to say, cnn, or msnbc, it would appear fox skews far to the right. except they dont. cnn and msnbc, et al skew that far left.

:Broncos:

[Natedogg]

Considering FoxNews has both liberal and conservative opinion, yes, they are fair and balanced. Of course, if you compare fox to say, cnn, or msnbc, it would appear fox skews far to the right. except they dont. cnn and msnbc, et al skew that far left.

:Broncos:


Well even though they have two talking heads, it seems the conservative one is always the strong personality, gets the good book deals and uses the liberal a punching bag. See Hanitty and colms

Can someone make this a public poll please?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

About as much as Tokyo Rose was
Rose was considered when Fox first aired but executives felt she just was a little too far left for their program.

[TheDave]

fair and balanced Hilarious!

[sirhcyennek81]

Well even though they have two talking heads, it seems the conservative one is always the strong personality, gets the good book deals and uses the liberal a punching bag. See Hanitty and colms

Can someone make this a public poll please?

Difference being, on Fox, the two talking heads are really conservative, and really liberal. They dont have an ultra liberal and a moderate liberal pretending to have honest debate. Also, liberals get their books published at a 2:1 ratio. The difference is, people prefer reading the conservative. Because they are sane.

:Broncos:

[Northman]

fair and balanced Hilarious!


My sentiments exactly.

[Play2win]

HELL FvCK NO !!!!!!!!!

Reminds me of the Movie "1984"

Or, George Orwell's book, for that matter...

[watermock]

This is like setting cheese out. Look at them come out of the woodwork right on schedule.

While "fair and balanced" might be a stretch as far as "balanced"...I dare anyone to give one example of false reporting compared to the leftist print rags or networks.

The fact liberals are repeatedly beaten down has more to do with their limited IQ and Ideology than any real answers. They sound like a biatch with three screaming babies all the time. They have no intention of building consensus whatsoever.

[sirhcyennek81]

Lord...I wonder how many people here actually watch foxnews...

:Broncos:

[freak6]

Yeah, CNN is a lefty news channel..lmao

That is why none of them pushed the story of the CHIEF OF MIDDLE EAST INTEL FROM THE CIA saying point blank :

"The President misused intelligence, and mislead the United States into the war in Iraq" .

He should be impeached for that alone, not to mention he did nothing to stop 9/11, when he was warned by the CIA in the August 6th Presidential Daily Briefing that

"Al Qaeda is in the country, continues to plan attacks, and is making prepartions consistent with hijacking planes, and casing out federal buildings in New York"

If your the President of the US, and you are warned of imminent hijackings wouldn't you do something. Then Condi lied about it under oath the 9/11 commission.

"There was no new information in the August 6th PDB, and no actionable information in it" - Condi

"What about this warning, 'Al Qaeda is in the country, continues to plan attacks, and is making prepartions consistent with hijacking planes, and casing out federal buildings in New York', isn't that new information?" - Sen. Bob Kerrey

"And we acted on that and warned the FAA" - Condi.

So she says there was no actionable evidence, and then that there was, that is called PERJURY. The truth is that thier pathetic action to "warn the FAA", was far to little given that they knew hijackings were imminent, and the truth is that it would suicide to admit it, so she lied.

BOOOM!!!

How am I not on TV every night telling the truth about the last 6 years is a problem into its own. I need to make a tape and send it to FOX News quick, since they are fair and balanced, they should give me a shot right...lmfao!!!

I KILL REPUBLICANS IN ALL DEBATES!!!!!!!

[DB-Freak]

Their support of the stormfront site was pretty astonishing.

[watermock]

Go back to the empty politics room. The CIA is covering it's ass because it was dismantled under Clinton and was completely incompetent when he took office.

[Natedogg]

Difference being, on Fox, the two talking heads are really conservative, and really liberal. They dont have an ultra liberal and a moderate liberal pretending to have honest debate. Also, liberals get their books published at a 2:1 ratio. The difference is, people prefer reading the conservative. Because they are sane.

:Broncos:

If you define sane as believing thing that are wrong.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

"Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely."

The three misconceptions are:

1. that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found
2. that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq
3. that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq

<a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6631/table13bs.gif" border="0" width="535" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" /></a>

News Hour with Jim Lehr really is the best program for news.

[baja]

This is like setting cheese out. Look at them come out of the woodwork right on schedule.

While "fair and balanced" might be a stretch as far as "balanced"...I dare anyone to give one example of false reporting compared to the leftist print rags or networks.

The fact liberals are repeatedly beaten down has more to do with their limited IQ and Ideology than any real answers. They sound like a biatch with three screaming babies all the time. They have no intention of building consensus whatsoever.

So how was that cheese?

[sirhcyennek81]

The three misconceptions are:

1. that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found
2. that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq
3. that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq
News Hour with Jim Lehr really is the best program for news.

Bush lied, people died: Part II
Mar 9, 2006
by Larry Elder

Gen. Georges Sada, the No. 2 ranking officer with the Iraqi Air Force, is finally being heard in Washington, D.C. Senate Armed Services Committee member James Inhofe, R-Okla., recently said, " . . . This old argument of weapons of mass destruction, which has always been a phony argument from the beginning, now that we have information that's been testified . . . in closed session, by this General Sadas [sic] -- all kinds of evidence as to the individuals who transported the weapons out of Iraq into Syria."
Ali Ibrahim, another Iraqi commander, corroborates Sada's assertion that Saddam possessed stockpiles of WMD, but transported them out of Iraq by air and by land. Furthermore, former FBI agent John Tierney says the United States uncovered hours of tapes -- since authenticated -- of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen discussing WMD, and how they hid their work from U.N. inspectors.

So, we continue our interview with Gen. Sada:

Elder: You said the president did the right thing in invading Iraq --

Sada: Excuse me, you say invading, I always say liberating.
Elder: OK, liberating Iraq. Are we winning this war of liberation?

Sada: The war is won. Now we are trying to win the peace. . . . The new elections were a great thing . . . and the wonderful, wonderful thing is that the first time we had 88 women elected in the Parliament of Iraq. I'm not sure of the number now, but you just imagine 88 women of 275 seats in the Parliament are women -- in an Islamic Arab country in the Middle East. This is the fruit of the liberation.

Elder: The WMD transported to Syria, are we talking about hundreds of tons of chemical and biological weapons?

Sada: Well, of course, because a Jumbo aircraft easily can take more than 50 tons. And especially that Jumbo was doing two sorties a day; maybe 727 was doing only one, but Jumbo for sure was doing two sorties a day, so it will be hundreds of tons were transported to Syria.

Elder: Transporting all these chemical and biological weapons to Syria in 56 sorties, using those planes, obviously a lot of people had to be involved in it. How can someone like David Kaye, our WMD hunter, and his successor, Charles Duelfer, how could they spend all that time in Iraq and not uncover what you told us?

Sada: . . . I can assure you that there are -- even in Intelligence sometimes -- that people are not taking it that serious, and dealing with it in that serious way. But now I can find that the senators like Inhofe and [Jeff] Sessions [R-Ala.], and Rep. Pete Hoekstra [R-Mich.], they are very serious, and this is the first time I can feel that your Intelligence are very serious . . . and I can assure you that this moment . . . there are people who are doing a lot in the Middle East to see the people who have transported the WMD to Syria.

Elder: What should we do about Iran?

Sada: I was in a discussion in Dubai . . . there were two professors from Iran there, and I was representing Iraq to discuss the security of the Gulf. And I told them like this: If you are going to possess the nuclear weapon, that's a disaster. If you will use it, it's a bigger disaster. And if you will not use it, it's also a disaster, because you are going to make a big, big, big hole in your economy. I hope that the Iranians at last will listen. We don't want that region to have more conflicts and to have more WMD, but the other way around, to get rid of these weapons, and make the region and the Middle East to live peaceful. . . .

Elder: So what should be done, General? They are embarking on acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Sada: Well, I think the world and the United States have got enough knowledge and enough courage, and enough things to know what to do, but I still believe that it will be much, much better to solve it in a peace way, because I am the director of a peace organization. But you know, always we cannot achieve the peace. . . .

Elder: Do you want to see a secure Israel living in peace with her neighbors?

Sada: Of course. . . . I want to see everybody in the region to be in peace. . . . And I hope that peace is coming very soon. And before I finish, I want to bow in front of the parents of those who have lost their beloved one, and I want to tell them that I know it is difficult and tough, but it is worth it, and they should be proud of their daughters and sons killed in the war because they have liberated a country, liberated 27 million people, and that country is the country of father Abraham, and Daniel of Babylon, and Jonah of Nineveh.

Larry Elder is an accomplished attorney, radio personality, syndicated columnist, best-selling author and host of daytime television's The Larry Elder Show

[Bronco_Beerslug]

If you define sane as believing thing that are wrong.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc

"Those who primarily watch Fox News are significantly more likely to have misperceptions, while those who primarily listen to NPR or watch PBS are significantly less likely."

The three misconceptions are:

1. that evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been found
2. that weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq
3. that world public opinion favored the US going to war with Iraq

<a href="http://imageshack.us"><img src="http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/6631/table13bs.gif" border="0" width="535" alt="Image Hosted by ImageShack.us" /></a>

News Hour with Jim Lehr really is the best program for news.

Geeeeezus!! How can there be so many ignorant people in this country?

[watermock]

So how was that cheese?

Your kidding right?

[freak6]

Mock, you're a clown, but the Director of Middle East Intel from the CIA said it himself. Read the article yourself.

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html

[sirhcyennek81]

Also on these thousands of hours worth of tapes, Saddam discusses using a "3rd" party to attack the US. He was referencing terror groups, like Al Qaeda. But hey, whatever helps you get on with your day.

:Broncos:

[Northman]

Also on these thousands of hours worth of tapes, Saddam discusses using a "3rd" party to attack the US. He was referencing terror groups, like Al Qaeda. But hey, whatever helps you get on with your day.

:Broncos:


Do we have those WMD's yet? thats all i want to know right now as that was the reason for the Iraq invasion.

[freak6]

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html

Read that, and find a better expert than him, and get back to me Sir.

Here is a book by another CIA expert, that predicts everything bad that has happened in Iraq, and why it was stupid to go in. Written b4 the war!!!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1574888625/sr=8-1/qid=1142190389/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-7320928-5998358?%5Fencoding=UTF8

[sirhcyennek81]

Do we have those WMD's yet? thats all i want to know right now as that was the reason for the Iraq invasion.


No. I wish we did. All we need for that clown in syria to say hey, you know what, I need to a new summer palace. Call up zarqawi, ask if he wants to make a deal

:Broncos:

[watermock]

Gee...when I posted exactly where the WMD were sent to Syria noone said anything...gee wiz...now the iraqi general confirms this and it's

Bush lied people died? What kind of title is that? The Sunni dictatorship of Syria has them now.

Sada: Well, of course, because a Jumbo aircraft easily can take more than 50 tons. And especially that Jumbo was doing two sorties a day; maybe 727 was doing only one, but Jumbo for sure was doing two sorties a day, so it will be hundreds of tons were transported to Syria.


Remember when I said this exact thing and was called a lunatic?

[Play2win]

This country is going down the tubes and **SOME** people are still trying to defend part of the reason its happening...

Effin' Brilliant...

[sirhcyennek81]

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html

Read that, and find a better expert than him, and get back to me Sir.

Here is a book by another CIA expert, that predicts everything bad that has happened in Iraq, and why it was stupid to go in. Written b4 the war!!!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1574888625/sr=8-1/qid=1142190389/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-7320928-5998358?%5Fencoding=UTF8


So let me understand this, I can't take the word of a man IN saddam's military, who actually saw WMD being moved into Syria, but I am supposed to take the word of a fired CIA director? Uhh...ok. Same CIA that had 9/11 warnings, as far back as 2000, and did nothing with them. Yeah, bang up job by those guys.

:Broncos:

[Natedogg]

Also on these thousands of hours worth of tapes, Saddam discusses using a "3rd" party to attack the US. He was referencing terror groups, like Al Qaeda. But hey, whatever helps you get on with your day.

:Broncos:

Saddam told his top generals himself he had no weapons of mass destruction! You are being delusional.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/international/middleeast/12saddam.html?ei=5065&en=5ff8718c91a409d3&ex=1142830800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

In December 2002, he told his top commanders that Iraq did not possess unconventional arms, like nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, according to the Iraq Survey Group, a task force established by the C.I.A. to investigate what happened to Iraq's weapons programs. Mr. Hussein wanted his officers to know they could not rely on poison gas or germ weapons if war broke out. The disclosure that the cupboard was bare, Mr. Aziz said, sent morale plummeting.

[Northman]

Gee...when I posted exactly where the WMD were sent to Syria noone said anything...gee wiz...now the iraqi general confirms this and it's

Bush lied people died? What kind of title is that? The Sunni dictatorship of Syria has them now.



Remember when I said this exact thing and was called a lunatic?


So we know they are in Syria yet have done nothing about taking Syria out? Or is it the U.S Goverment THINKS they are there with no proof? Next thing you know the U.S will attack Syria only to turn up nothing and claim they are in Russia or **** like that.

[sirhcyennek81]

Gee...when I posted exactly where the WMD were sent to Syria noone said anything...gee wiz...now the iraqi general confirms this and it's

Bush lied people died? What kind of title is that? The Sunni dictatorship of Syria has them now.



Remember when I said this exact thing and was called a lunatic?

That's just the title of the 3 articles, Mock. The author broke it down into 3 sections, each one dealing with WMD, al qaeda-iraq link, and the failure of the previous administration to recognize real danger.

:Broncos:

[TheDave]

I wonder if this guy Sada is related to the information minister?

[sirhcyennek81]

So we know they are in Syria yet have done nothing about taking Syria out? Or is it the U.S Goverment THINKS they are there with no proof? Next thing you know the U.S will attack Syria only to turn up nothing and claim they are in Russia or **** like that.

The Saddam tapes paints russia in a bad light. Being they aided saddam to get around the sanctions and what not. also providing him weapons systes capable of shooting down western aircraft. so much for the great russian ally.

:Broncos:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

No. I wish we did. All we need for that clown in syria to say hey, you know what, I need to a new summer palace. Call up zarqawi, ask if he wants to make a deal

:Broncos:
Never was no WMD (according to the U.S government and hadn't been since the Gulf War) Bush knew it, that's why he wouldn't wait for the inspectors to finnish (they only had a few more sites left).

Report concludes no WMD in Iraq
Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion, the chief US weapons inspector has concluded.

Iraq Survey Group head Charles Duelfer said Iraq's nuclear capability had decayed not grown since the 1991 war.
http://tinyurl.com/n6f9j

[watermock]

Do you know why exactly he was under sanctions? HE WAS GASSING MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. Did you forget the invasion of Iran, or Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia?

WTF is wrong with you people...he's going to be hung. The WMD is in Syria...his own General says so.

[watermock]

Of course the WMD wasn't there...the UN clowns were snooping around so it was moved! Jesus Christ.

[Play2win]

Bottom Line, because of this Administrations LIES, and FOXNEWS' Sensationalism, we Attacked a foreign, distant land Unprovoked, continue Occupation in that foreign land and continue to kill our own soldiers, taxpayers and citizens...

For what, I don't know...

[sirhcyennek81]

Never was no WMD (according to the U.S government and hadn't been since the Gulf War) Bush knew it, that's why he wouldn't wait for the inspectors to finnish (they only had a few more sites left).

Report concludes no WMD in Iraq
Iraq had no stockpiles of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons before last year's US-led invasion, the chief US weapons inspector has concluded.

Iraq Survey Group head Charles Duelfer said Iraq's nuclear capability had decayed not grown since the 1991 war.
http://tinyurl.com/n6f9j

WMD is in Syria. Saddam had from 1998 to 2002 to move his stockpiles or bury them.

:Broncos:

[spdirty]

Yes it has a conservative bias, and I believe it is impossible for a news network/show not to. While Liberals love to bash Fox for its conservayive bias, (they hate the Leprecaun) you have MSNBC (Matthews, Olberman, Donny Deutsch), the Clinton News Network, NBC, PBS, CBS, ABC, and to a lesser level, Comedy Centrals The Daily Show, which is more of a satire, although Jon Stewart is a liberal. All of them have a liberal bias. I'm counting 7 to 1 in favor of the left. But then they sit there and absolutely love to say that Fox is responsible for the destruction of this country because of its conservative bias.

Bottom line, every news network has a bias, you just have to choose for yourself which bias youd like to watch. No network is truly Fair and Balanced, and no Network ever will be because opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, and the ppl who deliver the news definitely have one, which makes it impossible for them to truly be fair and balanced.

[TheDave]

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

No really the WMD's are in Syria :thumbs:

[Dr. Broncenstein]

Foxnews gets the socialist crowd worked up over what they see on the tube.... It does just the opposite that CNNMSNBCABCCBSAOLTIMEWARNER does to the right side.... thus, its fair and balanced.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Of course the WMD wasn't there...the UN clowns were snooping around so it was moved! Jesus Christ.
Hook, line and sinker. Amazing how many Americans swallow this tripe!

[Northman]

The WMD is in Syria...his own General says so.


A General who is most likely trying to save his own skin most likely. Again, if we believe they are there than why are we not invading Syria at this very moment? I guess its that little thing called proof that they need.

[Play2win]

There never really was a WAR...

It really was only an UNPROVOKED ATTACK and an OCCUPATION...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

which makes it impossible for them to truly be fair and balanced.
So why would you vote they are then? The question isn't about any OTHER stations.

[Northman]

Bottom line, every news network has a bias, you just have to choose for yourself which bias youd like to watch. No network is truly Fair and Balanced, and no Network ever will be because opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one, and the ppl who deliver the news definitely have one, which makes it impossible for them to truly be fair and balanced.

Best post of the day and totally on the money.

[watermock]

Why don't we wipe out Syria? I have no clue. We might after Iraq stabilizes...most of the crap coming thru as terrorists are thru Syria anyway. Lucky those bastards aren't under my radar.

[Northman]

Why don't we wipe out Syria? I have no clue. We might after Iraq stabilizes...most of the crap coming thru as terrorists are thru Syria anyway. Lucky those bastards aren't under my radar.


But see that is where i have trouble with this whole thing Mock. We wasted no time rushing into Iraq only to turn up nothing. Now supposedly we know where they are again " cough cough " but yet hesitate to go in and get them. Just doesnt make sense and comes across as hogwash to me. IMO

[sirhcyennek81]

Bottom Line, because of this Administrations LIES, and FOXNEWS' Sensationalism, we Attacked a foreign, distant land Unprovoked, continue Occupation in that foreign land and continue to kill our own soldiers, taxpayers and citizens...

For what, I don't know...

Iraq never signed a peace treaty with the allies after we kicked him out of kuwait. He signed an armisitice. part of the armistice, was to allow UN inspectors into the country to see if he is dismantling his wmd programs. (he kicked them out in 1998) another was to keep his af and military out of kurdish and sunni areas of iraq. (no fly zones) sanctions were put in place to ensure he cooperated. (which ironically, allowed saddam a loophole out of the sanctions) The UN passed 18 resolutions condemning iraq for violating the armistice. Iraq was firing on allied planes in the no fly zones. saddam also paid off suicide bombers in palestine. So when Bush told the whole country, on national TV, that any nation who harbors terror, sponsors terror, or engages in acts of terror (iraq fits all three) they would get something they dont like. Not like we attacked Iraq for the hell of it.

:Broncos:

[watermock]

Second general confirms Sadaam's WMD is in Syria (and links with al-Qaeda)

A second former general and friend of Sadaam Hussein has confirmed that Sadaam moved his stock of WMDs to Syria prior to the US-led invasion - and that Sadaam's Iraq did support al-Qaeda with intelligence. Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti (known as Chemical Ali', southern regional commander for Sadaam's Fedayeen), speaking to Worldthreats.com has confirmed that the White Houses' reasons for going to war, including the claims over Sadaam's WMD, were entirely valid.



The man with the smoking gun? Syrian President Assad shares a 'nuke' with a friend.


Speaking of Sadaam and al-Quada links al-Tikriti said, "They only really came to terms in the mid '90s due to the fact that both knew they shared the same short-term enemy. Once they came to terms on this, Sadaam provided al-Qaeda with intelligence support and whatever money or munitions they could provide."

Rubbishing the oft-repeated Western notion that Sadaam was brought to power by the Americans he said the claim was "absolutely ridiculous" and went on to explain why. But it was in exposing Saddam's pre-invasion plans to hide his WMD arsenal that the assertions of Western liberals that the WMD 'never existed' are really exploded. Al-Tikriti said, "I have discussed this in-depth with various contacts of mine who have confirmed what I already knew." He went on to confirm that Sadaam's WMD is currently in Syria - the result of contingency planning to move them there as long ago as the 1980s.

Al-Tikriti explained that since Sadaam had come to power "he had wanted to embarass the West, and this was the perfect opportunity to do so". After Sadaam denied he had such weapons, why would he use them or leave them readily available to be found? That would only legitimize President Bush, who he has a personal grudge against."

Al-Tikiriti highlighted that what we are witnessing now, "is man who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Sadaam saying we overthrew a sovereign leader based on a lie about WMD. This is exactly what Sadaam wanted and predicted."

It was only two weeked ago that General Sada, formerly Sadaam's no 2 Air Force Commander, told the New York Sun that Sadaam's WMD was moved to Syria just six weeks before the US-led invasion.

What is certain is that these generals who were in the Sadaam inner circle do know the truth about Sadaam's WMD and the links with al-Qaeda. This, of curse, is not what Wetsern liberals - and a visciously anti-war media in the US and UK - do not want to hear. If scandal no 1 is that the Bush White House is not receiving the plaudits for getting it entirely right concerning Sadaam's possession of WMD and his pro-active support for al-Qaeda, then the second is that the US and UK media will - just as they did two weeks ago - bury this latest key expose. Just as there are none so blind as those who will not see, so to there are none so deaf as those who will not hear. For the full article go here. For the full original interview here.

So what about putting pressure on Syria to hand over the goods?

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Not like we attacked Iraq for the hell of it.
:Broncos:
Exactly what we did (to satisfy Bush's grudge for saddam putting a bounty on his daddy).

And inspections were on the verge of showing exactly what we know now... There weren't and aren't any WMD in Iraq (according to the United States government).

[Play2win]

Best answer, DON'T WATCH NEWS ON TV...

Get your news on the internet, it takes a fraction of the time, if you use somewhat reliable sources it isn't anymore unreliable than Television NEWS. Plus, you don't get so worked up (one way or another)...

AND, you don't have to hear BUSH Speak...

[DrFate]

Is anyone?

???

[baja]

So let me understand this, I can't take the word of a man IN saddam's military, who actually saw WMD being moved into Syria, but I am supposed to take the word of a fired CIA director? Uhh...ok. Same CIA that had 9/11 warnings, as far back as 2000, and did nothing with them. Yeah, bang up job by those guys.

:Broncos:

Did you actually read what you just wrote...

"Take the word of Saddam's general."

Don't you think there are more than a few generals of the defeated army that will say anything to better their lot in life

[watermock]

Well that's two Generals that say exactly what happened to the WMD...

Want more of a beat down, or is everyone lying but Howard Dean...

Second general confirms Sadaam's WMD is in Syria (and links with al-Qaeda)

A second former general and friend of Sadaam Hussein has confirmed that Sadaam moved his stock of WMDs to Syria prior to the US-led invasion - and that Sadaam's Iraq did support al-Qaeda with intelligence. Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti (known as Chemical Ali', southern regional commander for Sadaam's Fedayeen), speaking to Worldthreats.com has confirmed that the White Houses' reasons for going to war, including the claims over Sadaam's WMD, were entirely valid.



The man with the smoking gun? Syrian President Assad shares a 'nuke' with a friend.


Speaking of Sadaam and al-Quada links al-Tikriti said, "They only really came to terms in the mid '90s due to the fact that both knew they shared the same short-term enemy. Once they came to terms on this, Sadaam provided al-Qaeda with intelligence support and whatever money or munitions they could provide."

Rubbishing the oft-repeated Western notion that Sadaam was brought to power by the Americans he said the claim was "absolutely ridiculous" and went on to explain why. But it was in exposing Saddam's pre-invasion plans to hide his WMD arsenal that the assertions of Western liberals that the WMD 'never existed' are really exploded. Al-Tikriti said, "I have discussed this in-depth with various contacts of mine who have confirmed what I already knew." He went on to confirm that Sadaam's WMD is currently in Syria - the result of contingency planning to move them there as long ago as the 1980s.

Al-Tikriti explained that since Sadaam had come to power "he had wanted to embarass the West, and this was the perfect opportunity to do so". After Sadaam denied he had such weapons, why would he use them or leave them readily available to be found? That would only legitimize President Bush, who he has a personal grudge against."

Al-Tikiriti highlighted that what we are witnessing now, "is man who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Sadaam saying we overthrew a sovereign leader based on a lie about WMD. This is exactly what Sadaam wanted and predicted."

It was only two weeked ago that General Sada, formerly Sadaam's no 2 Air Force Commander, told the New York Sun that Sadaam's WMD was moved to Syria just six weeks before the US-led invasion.

What is certain is that these generals who were in the Sadaam inner circle do know the truth about Sadaam's WMD and the links with al-Qaeda. This, of curse, is not what Wetsern liberals - and a visciously anti-war media in the US and UK - do not want to hear. If scandal no 1 is that the Bush White House is not receiving the plaudits for getting it entirely right concerning Sadaam's possession of WMD and his pro-active support for al-Qaeda, then the second is that the US and UK media will - just as they did two weeks ago - bury this latest key expose. Just as there are none so blind as those who will not see, so to there are none so deaf as those who will not hear. For the full article go here. For the full original interview here.

So what about putting pressure on Syria to hand over the goods?

[watermock]

I can do more beat downs if you want them.

[baja]

So where are they

[Play2win]

I'd be curious what people think of LOU DOBBS...

[Bronco_Beerslug]

I can do more beat downs if you want them.
Hilarious!
Leave that cat alone.

[TheDave]

I can do more beat downs if you want them.

yes i do... keep 'em coming mock :griese:

[yavoon]

this thread has legs

[watermock]

Want more you apologists and blamers?

quote:
Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper ?De Telegraaf,? that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are:

1- Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground factory, built by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles. Iraqi chemical weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.

-2- The village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp. Vital parts of Iraq's WMD are stored there.

-3-. The city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of Homs city.

[watermock]

I allready posted the damn bunker image but this is a new computer and i can't find it. You could see fresh rubber into it. it's actually in Lebanon I think. Bakka valley nice and close to you know who.

I have no political motivation other than the truth. I'm not even a conservative.

[watermock]

1- Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground factory, built by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles. Iraqi chemical weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.

I can't find the picture. It's hard to find and this is a new puter.

[Natedogg]

Ummm...

Syria makes wmd on thier own. They're allowed to have them under un mandate like almost every other contry in the world. Syria is allowed to have WMD as is North Korea. WMD meaning chemical and biological weapons.

[watermock]

Explain to me exactly why North Korea is allowed to have WMD or just made them anyway in spite of the Clinton accords?

[watermock]

You don't have any evidence Syria was making WMD whatsoever...it's a total assertion, yet you won't take the word of two Generals and an inside information minister to say exactly what I have said for over two years.

And Iran needs nuclear power because it's low on fuel.

[watermock]

Ummm...

Syria makes wmd on thier own. They're allowed to have them under un mandate like almost every other contry in the world. Syria is allowed to have WMD as is North Korea. WMD meaning chemical and biological weapons.

WTF are you talking about ****head? You have never heard about signing off on the non proliferation treaty? You have absolutely no clue.

[watermock]

It doesn't even matter if that dictatorship makes WMD, we are talking about where the WMD went from Iraq you dimwit. To my knowlege, China, N. Korea and a few other clown states haven't signed off.

[Blueflame]

Where's the "haven't watched Fox News in years because I realized long, long ago that they were nothing more than the propaganda arm of the Republican Party" option?

[sirhcyennek81]

Actually, part of the reason FOR a UN is to ensure no one develops chemical, biological or nuclear weapons outside the US, UK, France, Russia and China. as usual, UN has done a great job doing that. Even says in the UN charter to stop the proliferation of WMD.

:Broncos:

[watermock]

Actually, part of the reason FOR a UN is to ensure no one develops chemical, biological or nuclear weapons outside the US, UK, France, Russia and China. as usual, UN has done a great job doing that. Even says in the UN charter to stop the proliferation of WMD.

:Broncos:

You have to be kidding me. China's ROC, not the communist governent was an original member.

The Republic of China (ROC) was one of the founding members of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security Council from its creation in 1945. In 1949 the Communist Party of China seized power on the mainland and declared the People's Republic of China (PRC), claiming to have replaced the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China. The ROC government withdrew to Taiwan, where it has continued to rule ever since.

I'm not even going to bother at this point. I have chased all the leftists off and gave a history lesson. Time to watch some BB.

[sirhcyennek81]

I propose we bury this thread. Immediately. Before mock has a coronary.

:Broncos:

[Bronco9798]

I love FOX News. I just like the format and like that 60 minute news show with Shep! He does a good job. Throw the politics out of it. I'm talking about any news, car chases, business news, etc., I love watchinbg Hannity and Colmes for the entertainment value. I like watching those two argue all the time. I don't care which way they lean or whatever. I like watching news in general. I've never voted a day in my life so I really don't look at which they lean, I just like watching it.

[Natedogg]

WTF are you talking about ****head? You have never heard about signing off on the non proliferation treaty? You have absolutely no clue.

wow. already onto personal attacks on page 3. thats nuclear weapons mock. chemical and biological are easy to make and held by a startling number of countries.

[coachmastermind]

Watch 5 minutes of Lou Dobbs on CNN and tell me they don't lean left.

[sirhcyennek81]

or when MSNBC put donahue on. yeah. thats not liberal bias at all...what next? Jimmy Carter hour?

:Broncos:

[bpc]

Welcome to media news outlets scewered by political views. There are NO fair and balanced news networks. They are all biased or blind. However you choose to look at it.

[Bob's your Information Minister]

No, they are joining the GonzoLays club.

[bombay]

Faux News

[baja]

Want more you apologists and blamers?

quote:
Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper ?De Telegraaf,? that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are:

1- Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground factory, built by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles. Iraqi chemical weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.

-2- The village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp. Vital parts of Iraq's WMD are stored there.

-3-. The city of Sjinsjar on the Syrian border with the Lebanon, south of Homs city.

I'm sure a Syrian journalist knows the where abouts of these highly secret places (assuming they exist)

and Dear Abby has a spare key to NORAD.

[R8R H8R]

Yes it has a conservative bias, and I believe it is impossible for a news network/show not to. While Liberals love to bash Fox for its conservayive bias, (they hate the Leprecaun) you have MSNBC (Matthews, Olberman, Donny Deutsch), the Clinton News Network, NBC, PBS, CBS, ABC, and to a lesser level, Comedy Centrals The Daily Show, which is more of a satire, although Jon Stewart is a liberal. All of them have a liberal bias. I'm counting 7 to 1 in favor of the left. But then they sit there and absolutely love to say that Fox is responsible for the destruction of this country because of its conservative bias.

Bottom line, every news network has a bias, you just have to choose for yourself which bias you would like to watch. No network is truly Fair and Balanced, and no Network ever will be because opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one, and the ppl who deliver the news definitely have one, which makes it impossible for them to truly be fair and balanced.

Bingo! You hit it on the head. But don't forget the print media- like the NY & LA Times.

Bottom line is: all media has a bias and people seem to flock to the source that confirm's their beliefs. The difference is Fox News dominates cable news and is growing in ratings while ABC,NBS,CBS,& CNN are steadily losing veiwers. I would mention MSNBC but nobody watches them. Ha!

I admit that I am a conservative and make no apologies for it- nor should I have to. So Fox seems Fair & Balanced to me because they give me the liberal and the conservative side of things (what a concept!).

However, from my perspective, I can't say that for any other network or major paper. I left the "mainstream media" a long time ago because, in my veiw, they seem to think that the only perspective is the liberal one. I am sure that someone that is left of center would argue, but that would just prove my point. And that is that people just want to confirm thier beliefs, so they watch or read what they think will do that.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Watch 5 minutes of Lou Dobbs on CNN and tell me they don't lean left.

Actually, Lou Dobbs is a conservative. (And by no means the only conservative who doesn't like what Bush and the neocons are doing to America.)

That should be an indicator of how far to the extreme right BushCo has pushed America.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bingo! You hit it on the head. But don't forget the print media- like the NY & LA Times.

Ah, the NY Times.

That would be that rag that acted as an unthinking, unquestioning, uncritical cheerleader for Bush's invasion of Iraq, wouldn't it?

The same rag that "catapulted the propaganda" and printed a formal apology later.

[spdirty]

Bingo! You hit it on the head. But don't forget the print media- like the NY & LA Times.

Bottom line is: all media has a bias and people seem to flock to the source that confirm's their beliefs. The difference is Fox News dominates cable news and is growing in ratings while ABC,NBS,CBS,& CNN are steadily losing veiwers. I would mention MSNBC but nobody watches them. Ha!

I admit that I am a conservative and make no apologies for it- nor should I have to. So Fox seems Fair & Balanced to me because they give me the liberal and the conservative side of things (what a concept!).

However, from my perspective, I can't say that for any other network or major paper. I left the "mainstream media" a long time ago because, in my veiw, they seem to think that the only perspective is the liberal one. I am sure that someone that is left of center would argue, but that would just prove my point. And that is that people just want to confirm thier beliefs, so they watch or read what they think will do that.


Yeah, and you can go to talk radio too, which I like a LOT MORE, because nobody in talk radio pretends to be fair and balanced. They announce their viewpoint and you know exactly what you are getting. Also, I like it because conservatives dominate it unlike most other media outlets, although I will listen to the Mike Malloy show on Airhead America at nights just for laughs.

[Hogan11]

Everyone is angry on that channel. Anger seems to be the fuel that makes it run, hence every show is confrontational and they appear to be that way for their own sakes. I think of it as for people who miss the Wally George & Mort Downey Jr type of thing.....it's a release for the perpetually angry and it more than provides the confrontational fix. Perpetually angry and in need of constant confrontation about describes every conservative I've ever ran across....Fox News knows it's audience and has no shame in pandering to it. That's fine for people who feel the need for that, but it sure as hell makes it awfully hard to take any of it seriously at all.

[spdirty]

Everyone is angry on that channel. Anger seems to be the fuel that makes it run, hence every show is confrontational and they appear to be that way for their own sakes. I think of it as for people who miss the Wally George & Mort Downey Jr type of thing.....it's a release for the perpetually angry and it more than provides the confrontational fix. Perpetually angry and in need of constant confrontation about describes every conservative I've ever ran across....Fox News knows it's audience and has no shame in pandering to it. That's fine for people who feel the need for that, but it sure as hell makes it awfully hard to take any of it seriously at all.


What??? The only shows that are even confrontational are the Leprecaun and Vannity and Colmes!

Compare that to Chris Matthews show every time he has a conservative on, or Crossfire (cancelled) which had the serpenthead constantly crushing the bowtie bitch. Those were just as if not more confrontational as Fox news has. Besides, I'd rather watch people with a little passion than that baggie eyed bolshevik on PBS in his constant monotone voice.

[Hogan11]

What??? The only shows that are even confrontational are the Leprecaun and Vannity and Colmes!

Compare that to Chris Matthews show every time he has a conservative on, or Crossfire (cancelled) which had the serpenthead constantly crushing the bowtie b****. Those were just as if not more confrontational as Fox news has. Besides, I'd rather watch people with a little passion than that baggie eyed bolshevik on PBS in his constant monotone voice.

I find even the newscasts themselves to be meanspirited in tone.....not to mention the running byline at the bottom of the screen which seems to be in a never ending search for one liners. I notice it whenever I tune in anyways and really, it gets old after awhile. Sure other networks have confrontational shows, but the whole anger,confrontation and meanspiritness thing doesn't appear to be the MO of those channels like it does for Fox News.

[spdirty]

I find even the newscasts themselves to be meanspirited in tone.....not to mention the running byline at the bottom of the screen which seems to be in a never ending search for one liners. I notice it whenever I tune in anyways and really, it gets old after awhile. Sure other networks have confrontational shows, but the whole anger,confrontation and meanspiritness thing doesn't appear to be the MO of those channels like it does for Fox News.


OK, if thats your opinion, I won't argue.

[freak6]

So let me understand this, I can't take the word of a man IN saddam's military, who actually saw WMD being moved into Syria, but I am supposed to take the word of a fired CIA director? Uhh...ok. Same CIA that had 9/11 warnings, as far back as 2000, and did nothing with them. Yeah, bang up job by those guys.

:Broncos:

Your brilliant Sir, how can argue with that? You trust some clown from Saddam's old military, and not the chief of Middle East Intel from the CIA?!?!?

lmao!!! YELLOW CAKE!!! Unmanned Airial Vehicles!!! Mushroom Clouds!!! Al Qaeda!!! errrrrrrrrr

Again, read the article, Paul Pillar himself details how the President lied us into war.

Also, Imperial Hubris, the other book I linked, details why strategically the War in Iraq was a total mistake in terms of the Global War on Terror. That comes from people that know infinitely more on the subject, than you, me, or Monkey Boy.

Additionally the CIA's latest intelligence report and also all other recent intel reports from the UN all state emphatically that

"THE WAR IN IRAQ IS HURTING US IN THE 'GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR" ".

Furthermore, it's real easy for you chickenhawks to send us Marines off to die for this BS, mishandled, bungled, non-planned, retarded war, which is why the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE has tried to RESIGN TWICE FROM HIS POSITION!!!!!

IDIOTS!!!

I am crushing you Sir, your kind of sad, your like a retarded sheep really. I pity your existence of non-questioning obedience.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Your brilliant Sir, how can argue with that? You trust some clown from Saddam's old military, and not the chief of Middle East Intel from the CIA?!?!?

lmao!!! YELLOW CAKE!!! Unmanned Airial Vehicles!!! Mushroom Clouds!!! Al Qaeda!!! errrrrrrrrr

Again, read the article, Paul Pillar himself details how the President lied us into war.

Also, Imperial Hubris, the other book I linked, details why strategically the War in Iraq was a total mistake in terms of the Global War on Terror. That comes from people that know infinitely more on the subject, than you, me, or Monkey Boy.

Additionally the CIA's latest intelligence report and also all other recent intel reports from the UN all state emphatically that

"THE WAR IN IRAQ IS HURTING US IN THE 'GLOBAL WAR ON TERROR" ".

Furthermore, it's real easy for you chickenhawks to send us Marines off to die for this BS, mishandled, bungled, non-planned, retarded war, which is why the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE has tried to RESIGN TWICE FROM HIS POSITION!!!!!

IDIOTS!!!

I am crushing you Sir, your kind of sad, your like a retarded sheep really. I pity your existence of non-questioning obedience.


^5 :thumbsup:

http://www.people.virginia.edu/~jls6c/strips/timecover.gif

[Smiling Assassin27]

Funny, I thought EVERY mainstream media provider's motto, real or implied, was 'fair and balanced'. Fox is no different than any other mainstream media outlet--unfair and unbalanced. The media in this country is not for providing information anymore, it's for swaying public opinion via passion, misinformation, half-truths, and incompetence.

[Rigs11]

or when MSNBC put donahue on. yeah. thats not liberal bias at all...what next? Jimmy Carter hour?

:Broncos:
Donahue was on the O'lielly show about a month ago. What's your point?

[alkemical]

I used to be a news junkie. But then say about 2k. I realized that 98% of all mainstream news is nothing more than propoganda for profit.

Since then i still read/listen to the major news media - but i'm skeptical of the news stories i didn't authorize to be printed. Without the full and total co-operation of all the news media - how can the agenda be accomplished?

I'm working on getting bloggers shut down, they obviously can't be any more accurate than 'mainstream' news media.

Did some of you wonder where anderson cooper, lisa ling, etc came from. they came from the NWO school of news. (if you don't know who or what channel1 is - ask your kids) -

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Quotes

"My buddy Korg is a lifelong Democrat but he told me he was switching to the Republicans. Why? Because if a Republican shoots somebody in the face, the other guy has to apologize."

- Rich Miller, writing in today's Chicago Sun-Times

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/

http://www.bartcop.com/1700-war-profiteers-club.jpg

[Killericon]

Of course not! Is the other side of the fence fair and balanced? No, but they're a hell of alot better.

To give you a hint...... FOX news network is unavailible in Canada. Why? Because it applied to the CRTC as a NEWS network, and the CRTC judged that the network contained too much spin and propaganda, and turned them down. To put this into perspective, Al Jazeera is availble to Canadians as a News network.

You may begin to rip Canada for being a lefty hippie state whenever you want, but just keep that in mind.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...the CRTC judged that the network contained too much spin and propaganda, and turned them down.

Hmmmm....could it have anything to do with the fact that the director of Faux News, viz., Roger Ailes, is a GOP strategist? ;)

[ClevelandBronco]

Is Fox News fair and balanced? No, of course not. I haven't seen nearly enough anarchists or communists or neo-nazis or La Raza, to name a few. Look, there aren't enough hours in the day to introduce the various viewpoints available across the whole of the political spectrum. If we're going to get a true balance, we'll have to sit through nonstop introductions with no time left for content.

Fox isn't "fair," and at best it offers a counterbalance to the viewpoint offered by some of the relatively more liberal outlets such as CNN and the big three news networks.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Is Fox News fair and balanced? No, of course not.

Then why does it use "fair and balanced" as its official slogan?

[ClevelandBronco]

Then why does it use "fair and balanced" as its official slogan?

Because it sells.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Because it sells.

And that, dear reader, is republican values in a nutshell.

It doesn't matter if it's a lie - all that matters is whether it sells or not.

[Rohirrim]

The thing I've always found fascinating about FAUX News? Something will happen. The media will talk to Frist or Hastert, or somebody. They'll begin doing the Rovespeak thing, you know, issuing the talking points. I'll flip through the channels and before you know it, all of the GOP, down to the Minister of the Foreign Currency Exchange is doing the Rove talking points. Then I flip to FAUX, and their whole programming for the day is set up around the talking points. They should register as an arm of the Bush government!

[ClevelandBronco]

And that, dear reader, is republican values in a nutshell.

It doesn't matter if it's a lie - all that matters is whether it sells or not.

It's a commercial enterprise. It primary purpose is to create profit. Its secondary purpose is to present information. If you're indicting Republicans for understanding how to make a profit in our capitalist system, I guess we'll have to plead guilty.

The reason Air America is going down in flames is that it doesn't understand that it needs to be a business first and a propaganda organ in the spaces left after doing business. That, and the left is difficult to unite under one banner. They tend to run in too many directions to present a united front, but that's really not germaine to this discussion.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

It primary purpose is to create profit. Its secondary purpose is to present information.

If you think this is the proper function of the press and/or the news media in America, then you've been imbibing more of the GOP Kool-Aid than I previously thought.

The reason Air America is going down in flames....

Going down in flames, eh? ROFL!

Don't forget "we're at war with Eurasia - we've always been at war with Eurasia."

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The thing I've always found fascinating about FAUX News? Something will happen. The media will talk to Frist or Hastert, or somebody. They'll begin doing the Rovespeak thing, you know, issuing the talking points. I'll flip through the channels and before you know it, all of the GOP, down to the Minister of the Foreign Currency Exchange is doing the Rove talking points. Then I flip to FAUX, and their whole programming for the day is set up around the talking points. They should register as an arm of the Bush government!

Yep - these people have turned goose stepping into an art form, that's for sure.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Next time someone tries to tell you about the "liberal media".....

Take some time to peruse these quotes:

Remembering the Iraq War's Pollyanna pundits

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2842

3/15/06

Weeks after the invasion of Iraq began, Fox News Channel host Brit Hume delivered a scathing speech critiquing the media's supposedly pessimistic assessment of the Iraq War.

"The majority of the American media who were in a position to comment upon the progress of the war in the early going, and even after that, got it wrong," Hume complained in the April 2003 speech (Richmond Times Dispatch, 4/25/04). "They didn't get it just a little wrong. They got it completely wrong."

Hume was perhaps correct--but almost entirely in the opposite sense. Days or weeks into the war, commentators and reporters made premature declarations of victory, offered predictions about lasting political effects and called on the critics of the war to apologize. Three years later, the Iraq War grinds on at the cost of at least tens of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.

Around the same time as Hume's speech, syndicated columnist Cal Thomas declared (4/16/03): "All of the printed and voiced prophecies should be saved in an archive. When these false prophets again appear, they can be reminded of the error of their previous ways and at least be offered an opportunity to recant and repent. Otherwise, they will return to us in another situation where their expertise will be acknowledged, or taken for granted, but their credibility will be lacking."

Gathered here are some of the most notable media comments from the early days of the Iraq War:

Declaring Victory

"Iraq Is All but Won; Now What?"
(Los Angeles Times headline, 4/10/03)

"Now that the combat phase of the war in Iraq is officially over, what begins is a debate throughout the entire U.S. government over America's unrivaled power and how best to use it."
(CBS reporter Joie Chen, 5/4/03)

"Congress returns to Washington this week to a world very different from the one members left two weeks ago. The war in Iraq is essentially over and domestic issues are regaining attention."
(NPR's Bob Edwards, 4/28/03)

"Tommy Franks and the coalition forces have demonstrated the old axiom that boldness on the battlefield produces swift and relatively bloodless victory. The three-week swing through Iraq has utterly shattered skeptics' complaints."
(Fox News Channel's Tony Snow, 4/27/03)

"The only people who think this wasn't a victory are Upper Westside liberals, and a few people here in Washington."
(Charles Krauthammer, Inside Washington, WUSA-TV, 4/19/03)

"We had controversial wars that divided the country. This war united the country and brought the military back."
(Newsweek's Howard Fineman--MSNBC, 5/7/03)

"We're all neo-cons now."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)

"The war was the hard part. The hard part was putting together a coalition, getting 300,000 troops over there and all their equipment and winning. And it gets easier. I mean, setting up a democracy is hard, but it is not as hard as winning a war."
(Fox News Channel's Fred Barnes, 4/10/03)

"Oh, it was breathtaking. I mean I was almost starting to think that we had become inured to everything that we'd seen of this war over the past three weeks; all this sort of saturation. And finally, when we saw that it was such a just true, genuine expression. It was reminiscent, I think, of the fall of the Berlin Wall. And just sort of that pure emotional expression, not choreographed, not stage-managed, the way so many things these days seem to be. Really breathtaking."
(Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly, appearing on Fox News Channel on 4/9/03, discussing the pulling down of a Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad, an event later revealed to have been a U.S. military PSYOPS operation--Los Angeles Times, 7/3/04)


Mission Accomplished?

"The war winds down, politics heats up.... Picture perfect. Part Spider-Man, part Tom Cruise, part Ronald Reagan. The president seizes the moment on an aircraft carrier in the Pacific."
(PBS's Gwen Ifill, 5/2/03, on George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" speech)

"We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical, who's not a complicated guy like Clinton or even like Dukakis or Mondale, all those guys, McGovern. They want a guy who's president. Women like a guy who's president. Check it out. The women like this war. I think we like having a hero as our president. It's simple. We're not like the Brits."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 5/1/03)

"He looked like an alternatively commander in chief, rock star, movie star, and one of the guys."
(CNN's Lou Dobbs, on Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' speech, 5/1/03)

Neutralizing the Opposition

"Why don't the damn Democrats give the president his day? He won today. He did well today."
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, 4/9/03)

"What's he going to talk about a year from now, the fact that the war went too well and it's over? I mean, don't these things sort of lose their--Isn't there a fresh date on some of these debate points?"
(MSNBC's Chris Matthews, speaking about Howard Dean--4/9/03)

"If image is everything, how can the Democratic presidential hopefuls compete with a president fresh from a war victory?"
(CNN's Judy Woodruff, 5/5/03)

"It is amazing how thorough the victory in Iraq really was in the broadest context..... And the silence, I think, is that it's clear that nobody can do anything about it. There isn't anybody who can stop him. The Democrats can't oppose--cannot oppose him politically."
(Washington Post reporter Jeff Birnbaum-- Fox News Channel, 5/2/03)

Nagging the "Naysayers"

"Now that the war in Iraq is all but over, should the people in Hollywood who opposed the president admit they were wrong?"
(Fox News Channel's Alan Colmes, 4/25/03)

"I doubt that the journalists at the New York Times and NPR or at ABC or at CNN are going to ever admit just how wrong their negative pronouncements were over the past four weeks."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/9/03)

"I'm waiting to hear the words 'I was wrong' from some of the world's most elite journalists, politicians and Hollywood types.... I just wonder, who's going to be the first elitist to show the character to say: 'Hey, America, guess what? I was wrong'? Maybe the White House will get an apology, first, from the New York Times' Maureen Dowd. Now, Ms. Dowd mocked the morality of this war....

"Do you all remember Scott Ritter, you know, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector who played chief stooge for Saddam Hussein? Well, Mr. Ritter actually told a French radio network that -- quote, 'The United States is going to leave Baghdad with its tail between its legs, defeated.' Sorry, Scott. I think you've been chasing the wrong tail, again.

"Maybe disgraced commentators and politicians alike, like Daschle, Jimmy Carter, Dennis Kucinich, and all those others, will step forward tonight and show the content of their character by simply admitting what we know already: that their wartime predictions were arrogant, they were misguided and they were dead wrong. Maybe, just maybe, these self-anointed critics will learn from their mistakes. But I doubt it. After all, we don't call them 'elitists' for nothing."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 4/10/03)

"Over the next couple of weeks when we find the chemical weapons this guy was amassing, the fact that this war was attacked by the left and so the right was so vindicated, I think, really means that the left is going to have to hang its head for three or four more years."
(Fox News Channel's Dick Morris, 4/9/03)

"This has been a tough war for commentators on the American left. To hope for defeat meant cheering for Saddam Hussein. To hope for victory meant cheering for President Bush. The toppling of Mr. Hussein, or at least a statue of him, has made their arguments even harder to defend. Liberal writers for ideologically driven magazines like The Nation and for less overtly political ones like The New Yorker did not predict a defeat, but the terrible consequences many warned of have not happened. Now liberal commentators must address the victory at hand and confront an ascendant conservative juggernaut that asserts United States might can set the world right."
(New York Times reporter David Carr, 4/16/03)

"Well, the hot story of the week is victory.... The Tommy Franks-Don Rumsfeld battle plan, war plan, worked brilliantly, a three-week war with mercifully few American deaths or Iraqi civilian deaths.... There is a lot of work yet to do, but all the naysayers have been humiliated so far.... The final word on this is, hooray."
(Fox News Channel's Morton Kondracke, 4/12/03)

"Some journalists, in my judgment, just can't stand success, especially a few liberal columnists and newspapers and a few Arab reporters."
(CNN's Lou Dobbs, 4/14/03)

"Sean Penn is at it again. The Hollywood star takes out a full-page ad out in the New York Times bashing George Bush. Apparently he still hasn't figured out we won the war."
(MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, 5/30/03)

Cakewalk?

"This will be no war -- there will be a fairly brief and ruthless military intervention.... The president will give an order. [The attack] will be rapid, accurate and dazzling.... It will be greeted by the majority of the Iraqi people as an emancipation. And I say, bring it on."
(Christopher Hitchens, in a 1/28/03 debate-- cited in the Observer, 3/30/03)

"I will bet you the best dinner in the gaslight district of San Diego that military action will not last more than a week. Are you willing to take that wager?"
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 1/29/03)

"It won't take weeks. You know that, professor. Our military machine will crush Iraq in a matter of days and there's no question that it will."
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03)

"There's no way. There's absolutely no way. They may bomb for a matter of weeks, try to soften them up as they did in Afghanistan. But once the United States and Britain unleash, it's maybe hours. They're going to fold like that."
(Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, 2/10/03)

"He [Saddam Hussein] actually thought that he could stop us and win the debate worldwide. But he didn't--he didn't bargain on a two- or three week war. I actually thought it would be less than two weeks."
(NBC reporter Fred Francis, Chris Matthews Show, 4/13/03)


Weapons of Mass Destruction

NPR's Mara Liasson: Where there was a debate about whether or not Iraq had these weapons of mass destruction and whether we can find it...

Brit Hume: No, there wasn't. Nobody seriously argued that he didn't have them beforehand. Nobody.
(Fox News Channel, April 6, 2003)

"Speaking to the U.N. Security Council last week, Secretary of State Colin Powell made so strong a case that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is in material breach of U.N. resolutions that only the duped, the dumb and the desperate could ignore it."
(Cal Thomas, syndicated column, 2/12/03)

"Saddam could decide to take Baghdad with him. One Arab intelligence officer interviewed by Newsweek spoke of 'the green mushroom' over Baghdad--the modern-day caliph bidding a grotesque bio-chem farewell to the land of the living alongside thousands of his subjects as well as his enemies. Saddam wants to be remembered. He has the means and the demonic imagination. It is up to U.S. armed forces to stop him before he can achieve notoriety for all time."
(Newsweek, 3/17/03)

"Chris, more than anything else, real vindication for the administration. One, credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction. Two, you know what? There were a lot of terrorists here, really bad guys. I saw them."
(MSNBC reporter Bob Arnot, 4/9/03)

"Even in the flush of triumph, doubts will be raised. Where are the supplies of germs and poison gas and plans for nukes to justify pre-emption? (Freed scientists will lead us to caches no inspectors could find.) What about remaining danger from Baathist torturers and war criminals forming pockets of resistance and plotting vengeance? (Their death wish is our command.)"
(New York Times' William Safire, 4/10/03)

They all sound like world-class morons in hindsight, don't they? :D

(Although most of us, i.e., those of us who were awake and reasonably well-informed, never bought into their bullsh*t to begin with.)

[BroncoBuff]

Actually, it's their TALK HOSTS[/i] who are the right-wing nut-jobs, .... O'Reilly, Hannity, Britt Hume and Gibson (and for that matter the skeletor-lapdog Allan Colmes).

But their NEWS, PER SE, their 5-minute news-BREAKS - and I watch them pretty closely - don't seem too skewed. That Iavanna whatshername still calls the NSA wiretap issue "domestic spying" even now. I thought the Republican "talking points" had nixed that terminology.

But I voted NO.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Bush's Secret Service Agents Posed As Fox News Reporters

"...Recounting the pre-visit days for WLOX and the Biloxi Sun Herald, Jerry Akins, who received Bush, mentioned that on the Friday before Bush arrived, two men approached him identifying themselves as members of the media."

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/14124750.htm

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Cheney requires TVs to be pre-tuned to Fox News in Hotels

No surprise about Fox, but to put it on paper?
____________________________________

Web site details Cheney's hotel comforts: 68 degrees, Diet Sprite
Leaked papers reportedly list vice president's room requirements

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- When he travels, Vice President Dick Cheney wants his hotel suites at 68 degrees, a document published Thursday by "The Smoking Gun" Web site stipulates.

He also wants fresh-brewed, decaffeinated coffee, four to six bottles of water and four cans of caffeine-free Diet Sprite, according to the list of requests, which is titled "Vice Presidential Downtime Requirements."

"The requirements are consistent with the guidelines relayed by the advance office to the volunteers to the field," a spokesperson with the vice president's office told CNN.

He also asks that the TV be tuned to Fox News, "The Smoking Gun" reported. And he likes the suite equipped with extra lamps, with all the lights turned on, as well as copies of the local newspaper, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/23/cheney.hotel/index.html

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/0322061cheney1.gif