FOX News Beats the War Drum Once Again

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

Has anyone seen a documentary about Fox News channel called "Out Foxed." The way Fox News operates its broadcasts makes you shake your head. For instance, Bill O'Reilly always removes anything from his script which could been seen as critical of the G.W. Bush administration. It makes me wonder why Fox News uses the slogan "fair and balanced." The only two anchors on Fox News who have any credibility in my mind are Alan Colmes and Chris Wallace. The rest of them are drones who are in lockstep with Bush and Cheney.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

In my book, Fox crosses the line by intentionally lying. Instead of reporting the news, they are creating it. Other news sources aren't completely innocent either but, to me, Fox takes it to the extreme and I hardly trust anything they report. Others are starting to have the same opinion and it's well deserved. Kind of like the old Pravda in the Soviet days, a tool for this administration.

See this is my point ...

says who?
proven by what?
with what back up sources?
Who holds these guys accountable?

The way the world works now ... I can be a decent young film maker that cherry picks what he wants and fires something up on youtube in ten minutes and find myself quoted as fact by guys like you for the rest of time.

dig around a bit and you find out just how cherry picked these things are.

Gore's movie cherry picked like crazy on global warming, but then so too did the GM Swindle movie from BBC going the other way.

Bottom line neither can be trusted.

Man CBS News was caught with their pants down, so to have the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, you name it ... they've all been hammered.

Now are they all mistakes but Fox is lying or is there a bigger issue at play here in all media outlets that should cause us all concern in all directions and not just in the direction that our individual ideology disagrees with?

[Azure]

False evidence? I'm highly curious what false evidence they manufactured in order to sell the war.

Its hilarious how people will accuse Bush and Cheney of doing that, yet how many Democrats were in step the whole way? I don't think I have to go back and find the articles of how Hillary, Kerry and the rest of them, except Obama...were saying AND believing the exact same thing Bush and Cheney did.

I've been through this argument before. I don't think any manufactured evidence to try and go to war. Instead, they went to war on almost nothing. Everything about Iraq came from sources OUTSIDE of the US government. German sources...defectors within Iraq...absolutely it wasn't credible...but that doesn't mean they made it up.

And yet, even with that information out on the internet for people to read....some still beat the old 'manufactured false evidence' drum.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Kind of like the old Pravda in the Soviet days, a tool for this administration.

This is the real problem with Fox, actually--the media in general is guilty of trumpeting news stories without doing adequate fact-checking, and perhaps of not interrogating the White House sufficiently on some of its claims. But Fox takes it a step further--they actually repeat VERBATIM many of the GOP's talking points on certain issues--and do it repeatedly throughout the day.

Jon Stewart has run one or two montages on this very topic, which I can't find on youtube, but remember seeing on the air. It would be criminal if it wasn't so laughable.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

False evidence? I'm highly curious what false evidence they manufactured in order to sell the war.

Its hilarious how people will accuse Bush and Cheney of doing that, yet how many Democrats were in step the whole way? I don't think I have to go back and find the articles of how Hillary, Kerry and the rest of them, except Obama...were saying AND believing the exact same thing Bush and Cheney did.

I've been through this argument before. I don't think any manufactured evidence to try and go to war. Instead, they went to war on almost nothing. Everything about Iraq came from sources OUTSIDE of the US government. German sources...defectors within Iraq...absolutely it wasn't credible...but that doesn't mean they made it up.

And yet, even with that information out on the internet for people to read....some still beat the old 'manufactured false evidence' drum.

As usual, the truth is somewhere between "no-one could have foreseen this" and "the Bush administration lied about WMDs." It's pretty clear that they over-reached and exaggerated--not an uncommon thing in politics. (Ironically, the knock on Al Gore in 2000 was his tendency to exaggerate...) They also worked hard to suppress dissenting voices in the administration, at least once breaking the law in order to do so. What's the payoff? Easy.

People sometimes forget that in early 2001, Bush's presidency was beginning to look like it might be in trouble. He'd had very little discernible "honeymoon" effect, and his poll numbers were starting to dip into the low 50s, very unusual for a president in his first year in office. What really saved his presidency, at least in the public eye, was the fact that he was later able to redefine himself as a war president. In the aftermath of 9/11, he had a lot of support both domestically and abroad, and after that enacted a pretty sweeping foreign agenda, which included the invasion of Iraq as a way of defining the U.S.' new foreign policy, justified by global terrorism, but also very clearly an attempt to extend U.S. military power more forcefully into the world.

Does this mean Bush "lied." Not really--this is just how politics works. I have no doubt that he genuinely believed Iraq would work out better--and if it had, I submit that we wouldn't even be talking about the marketing of the war. Because it's a disaster, we're now asking the tough questions about how we got where we are in the first place.

Which leads me to the complex question of the media--who in hindsight were ALL guilty of the worst kind of yellow journalism. CNN, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc. etc.--all were equally guilty of just jumping on the bandwagon and going along with a lead up to a war that in hindsight looks a bit foolish.

Fox's problem has been that since then they've STILL failed to ask the questions that other media outlets are beginning to ask--and as the Bush admin's talking points begin to seem ever more distant from reality, Fox looks even sillier for continually repeating them as if they came from a credible source. They're still on the bandwagon, still spouting that same yellow journalism--and it's getting embarrassing, whatever your political stripe may be.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

Has anyone seen a documentary about Fox News channel called "Out Foxed." The way Fox News operates its broadcasts makes you shake your head. For instance, Bill O'Reilly always removes anything from his script which could been seen as critical of the G.W. Bush administration. It makes me wonder why Fox News uses the slogan "fair and balanced." The only two anchors on Fox News who have any credibility in my mind are Alan Colmes and Chris Wallace. The rest of them are drones who are in lockstep with Bush and Cheney.

I'm not even sure where I fall on the issue of Fox News - haven't seen enough of it to really make a judgement. But I did see this doc and please do not use it to form any opinion. It is an extremely slanted piece...I hesitate to even call it a documentary.

[flylock shox]

Some thoughts on the foregoing discussion...

Fox is entertainment news. It is right-wing slanted and, besides it's "fair and balanced" slogan, makes no credible effort to appear otherwise. That said, it was not alone in selling the Iraq war to America: the other "credible" news sources proved cowardly in confronting the administration selling the war, and had they done their jobs and provided real journalism and a real check or balance to the system, the number of Americans buying into the Iraq war would have been much lower.

The Iraq war was criminal, and clearly criminal, from the outset. If you did any independent research into Iraq and the administration's claims leading up to the war, you would have seen they were drawing up a paper tiger. Bushies tend to suggest that this is "revisionist history" and that people who were all for the war now take the opposite stance. This isn't the case. In fact, it's those same individuals who are attempting to revise history. The fact is, most of the world didn't buy into the war, and millions marched in protest against it long before it came to past. The US built a coalition for desert storm because there was validity to that war and it was evident to other nations around the world. The more recent "coalition of the willing" demonstrates that the selling job didn't go down overseas nearly as well as at home, and for good reason. In my opinion, anyone who thought the recent Iraq war was a good idea (before it happened) has no business running a country, and loses a lot of credibility in my eyes. To me, the fraud was obvious from the very first day Bush hinted force might be used.

The US can't take on Iran. It would be a disaster. Iran is more developed in every aspect of their society. The US is already stretched in Iraq, and the popularity of that war is already plummeting. The US doesn't have the manpower or the resources to do in Iran what it did in Iraq, and the US doesn't have the political capital with the rest of the world to expect any help taking on Iran. They have no credibility after Iraq, and rightly so. Fox isn't selling war with Iran, it's selling advertising space. In the midst of a slow summer, with a right wing viewership that isn't going to want to watch what's happening in Iraq, Fox is just looking for something to get people's attention.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

As usual, the truth is somewhere between "no-one could have foreseen this" and "the Bush administration lied about WMDs." It's pretty clear that they over-reached and exaggerated--not an uncommon thing in politics. (Ironically, the knock on Al Gore in 2000 was his tendency to exaggerate...) They also worked hard to suppress dissenting voices in the administration, at least once breaking the law in order to do so. What's the payoff? Easy.

People sometimes forget that in early 2001, Bush's presidency was beginning to look like it might be in trouble. He'd had very little discernible "honeymoon" effect, and his poll numbers were starting to dip into the low 50s, very unusual for a president in his first year in office. What really saved his presidency, at least in the public eye, was the fact that he was later able to redefine himself as a war president. In the aftermath of 9/11, he had a lot of support both domestically and abroad, and after that enacted a pretty sweeping foreign agenda, which included the invasion of Iraq as a way of defining the U.S.' new foreign policy, justified by global terrorism, but also very clearly an attempt to extend U.S. military power more forcefully into the world.

Does this mean Bush "lied." Not really--this is just how politics works. I have no doubt that he genuinely believed Iraq would work out better--and if it had, I submit that we wouldn't even be talking about the marketing of the war. Because it's a disaster, we're now asking the tough questions about how we got where we are in the first place.

Which leads me to the complex question of the media--who in hindsight were ALL guilty of the worst kind of yellow journalism. CNN, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc. etc.--all were equally guilty of just jumping on the bandwagon and going along with a lead up to a war that in hindsight looks a bit foolish.

Fox's problem has been that since then they've STILL failed to ask the questions that other media outlets are beginning to ask--and as the Bush admin's talking points begin to seem ever more distant from reality, Fox looks even sillier for continually repeating them as if they came from a credible source. They're still on the bandwagon, still spouting that same yellow journalism--and it's getting embarrassing, whatever your political stripe may be.

Pretty much bang on with what I believe.

I don't watch Fox anymore...outside of the occasional O'Rielly. Is that because of what Fox is like, or because of what the mainstream media is like these days? For me, its more of the latter.

My news usually comes from Google News...or the Drudge Report. Both link articles from numerous different sites...although I do admit the Drudge Report has the obvious right-wing slant. Doesn't bother me, as I try to stay away from politics as much as possible these days. Everything that has to do with Washington annoys the hell outta me.

[MelBridgeman]

So someone took the time to make a video about everytime someone appearing on FOX said the word IRAN......is that what this big fuss is about? - oh god in must me true...


Can i make a video with Jarome Iginla in it, only showing the times he said the word traded or mentioned another team, and then use this video as evidence that he wishes to be traded?

[flylock shox]

Edit: double post...

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

False evidence? I'm highly curious what false evidence they manufactured in order to sell the war.

...

And yet, even with that information out on the internet for people to read....some still beat the old 'manufactured false evidence' drum.

Well, just by searching "false evidence Iraq war" on Google, the very first page that came up (from CNN, go figure) had some direct quotes from Bush in which he makes claims that were later found to be false, like:

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

Notice that none of these statements are qualified - there's no "we believe" or "sources indicate". In the second statement there is even a "leaves no doubt" to drive home his entirely mendacious claim, as there was not only plenty of doubt, but a preponderance of evidence to the contrary that the administration chose to ignore.

Now in my view, claiming you have proof of something that turns out to be completely wrong, is manufacturing evidence. "Proof" implies "evidence", and since there was no evidence other than misinterpretation of sources that were questionable to begin with, that is, in the common parlance, "making sh*t up".

As far as the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, Rice claimed there were organizational-level links between the two in direct denial of a Senate report released BEFORE her statement that no such links existed. The only "link" between the two was that one member of Al-Qaeda planned some operations while in Iraq, however this is about as relevant as claiming that Al-Qaeda and Canada are bosum buddies because some of the 9/11 highjackers used Canada as a staging point to get into the US.

[vicphoenix13]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

I'm not even sure where I fall on the issue of Fox News - haven't seen enough of it to really make a judgement. But I did see this doc and please do not use it to form any opinion. It is an extremely slanted piece...I hesitate to even call it a documentary.

I know "Out Foxed" is slanted, but you can't tell me that Bill O'Reilly doesn't hide the truth to protect the Repuglycans. I have seen enough of Fox News to know that the majority of the programming is complete garbage. In fact, I demanded that my cable company remove Fox News from my cable package.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jammies

Well, just by searching "false evidence Iraq war" on Google, the very first page that came up (from CNN, go figure) had some direct quotes from Bush in which he makes claims that were later found to be false, like:

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."

Notice that none of these statements are qualified - there's no "we believe" or "sources indicate". In the second statement there is even a "leaves no doubt" to drive home his entirely mendacious claim, as there was not only plenty of doubt, but a preponderance of evidence to the contrary that the administration chose to ignore.

Now in my view, claiming you have proof of something that turns out to be completely wrong, is manufacturing evidence. "Proof" implies "evidence", and since there was no evidence other than misinterpretation of sources that were questionable to begin with, that is, in the common parlance, "making sh*t up".

As far as the link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, Rice claimed there were organizational-level links between the two in direct denial of a Senate report released BEFORE her statement that no such links existed. The only "link" between the two was that one member of Al-Qaeda planned some operations while in Iraq, however this is about as relevant as claiming that Al-Qaeda and Canada are bosum buddies because some of the 9/11 highjackers used Canada as a staging point to get into the US.

Ummm....I was talking about manufactured evidence...you know the stuff he clearly made up. False evidence was still collected from numerous sources...yet never verified. None of it was verified...which is why most can be labeled 'false' or 'uncredible.' But certainly not made up on the spot because Bush wanted to go to war. That is how I understand every report that has been made available to the public. In fact many people have come out and said that evidence that existed was 'manipulated' certain ways.

Bush also said they have evidence that Saddam had developed mobile chemical weapon labs....which he had...but they weren't being used at the time.

So in essence...that intelligence, which was provided by a defector out of Iraq....was correct to a point. Had it been verified properly, or had the US had boots on the ground collecting it...maybe they would have figured out it wasn't credible. Tenet himself thought it was good evidence.

There is a difference between simply making it up...and having your sources, which they did....and manipulating certain reports(woodward talks about this)...and trying to build support for the war that way.

Many of the democrats didn't even read more than one page of the intelligence briefing. What does that say of them?

[oldschoolcalgary]

yeah...i think the fundemental problem is that the media is afraid of being labelled as being anti-american if they came out against the war...it was very macarthy-esque down there when it comes to questioning the government after 9/11...

funny, how some general's are now saying that Iraq's culture wasn't ready for democracy...and no, this isn't hindsight nor post rationalization - plenty of people voiced that a long time ago - the administration decided not to listen, instead choosing a polyanna attitude about being "showered with candy" and roses...

laughable now...

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

And the idea that I need a history book to find Iranians shouting "death to America" is ok is completely insane to me. Iran is comprised of 71,000,000 citizens that have little to do with foreign policy. If you think existing makes them a perfectly acceptable target for murder because of your opinion on foreign policy than I can't help you.

huh...

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

There is a difference between simply making it up...and having your sources, which they did....and manipulating certain reports(woodward talks about this)...and trying to build support for the war that way.

Many of the democrats didn't even read more than one page of the intelligence briefing. What does that say of them?

Well, I think you are arguing semantics - I think taking unverified intelligence and calling it verified is manufacturing evidence; I would be curious to know what you would actually apply this term to, as your definition seems unnecessarily stringent. The US intelligence community has such a huge amount of raw data that you could make just about any claim whatsoever and find *something* that supports it, which is what it appears was done.

For example, if Bush claimed that Saddam was Satan incarnate and that he had proof, would some backwoods preacher in Arkansas having once claimed the same thing qualify as a "unverified source" that showed he wasn't just making it up? The administration went beyond choosing its facts to suit its message, it chose opinions to suit its message and called them facts. That is what is so wrong about what was done.

As far as the Democrats go, they are only less culpable in that they went along with Bush because it seemed the popular thing to do at the time and electoral suicide to do otherwise. However, since both parties are a joke and an embarrassment to what was once a great democratic republic, I expected nothing less at the time and am even less surprised now by their antics trying to distance themselves from their sins.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by vicphoenix13

I know "Out Foxed" is slanted, but you can't tell me that Bill O'Reilly doesn't hide the truth to protect the Repuglycans. I have seen enough of Fox News to know that the majority of the programming is complete garbage. In fact, I demanded that my cable company remove Fox News from my cable package.

As I said, I'm not sure I have a strong opinion either way on the topic and haven't watched Fox News enough to offer a valid opinion.

It's just that slanted docs bug me. Now every doc has a slant - impossible not to - but of late some of the ones gaining the most attention are often the ones the most slanted, while quality ones go unnoticed.

All of which is off topic for this particular thread. Jiri the mod needs to tell Jiri the poster to stay on topic.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Azure

Ummm....I was talking about manufactured evidence...you know the stuff he clearly made up. False evidence was still collected from numerous sources...yet never verified. None of it was verified...which is why most can be labeled 'false' or 'uncredible.' But certainly not made up on the spot because Bush wanted to go to war. That is how I understand every report that has been made available to the public. In fact many people have come out and said that evidence that existed was 'manipulated' certain ways.

Bush also said they have evidence that Saddam had developed mobile chemical weapon labs....which he had...but they weren't being used at the time.

So in essence...that intelligence, which was provided by a defector out of Iraq....was correct to a point. Had it been verified properly, or had the US had boots on the ground collecting it...maybe they would have figured out it wasn't credible. Tenet himself thought it was good evidence.

There is a difference between simply making it up...and having your sources, which they did....and manipulating certain reports(woodward talks about this)...and trying to build support for the war that way.

Many of the democrats didn't even read more than one page of the intelligence briefing. What does that say of them?

Yellowcake Uranium, Ahmed Chalabi, Curveball.

Those three things helped lead to their assumption of WMDs - going back over the evidence, it was either gross incompetence or negligence, which caused the administration to use those as pools of evidence for the war.

Azure, you should read the Senate report on Pre-War Iraq Intel. It is an interesting read to say the least.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Those three things helped lead to their assumption of WMDs - going back over the evidence, it was either gross incompetence or negligence, which caused the administration to use those as pools of evidence for the war.

The execution of the war leads me to believe that it was gross incompetence.

Here's some food for thought. If they lied about the existence of WMDs in Iraq, that was pretty dumb. They had to know that they'd eventually be caught when no weapons were found. I think it's likelier that they really thought they'd be proven right--and in a way, the U.S. had good reason to believe that Iraq was in possession of WMDs....

They still have the receipts.

I for one opposed the war from the start--but I'll admit I was very surprised that they found no WMDs at all. I didn't think a massive and expensive nuclear weapons program was likely, but... nothing at all? Not a single chemical warhead or tub of anthrax? That's actually a bit disturbing, because the U.S. KNOWS that Iraq HAD them, for at least two reasons:
1. They were the ones who provided Iraq with some weapons during the Iran-Iraq war (not sure of the exact details of this but I assume some were tactical...)
2. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons on his own citizens in at least one documented instance that I can think of. This implies that at one time he had some.

Heck, if you invaded CANADA, you'd find SOMETHING that looked like a chemical weapon. So what happened to them? Are they just gone? In the hands of rogue actors outside Iraq? I don't want to be alarmist, but it does worry me a little.

Sure, it's possible that he didn't have any left, but if that's the case it's the worst hoax in the history of hoaxes. Personally, if I was going to lie about the existence of WMDs in another country, and use that as a pretext to invade, I'd also plant some WMDs for myself to find. You know, so I don't look like an idiot.

I think the Bush administration fully expected to find something suspicious, though I doubt even the most ideological expected that there would be a developing nuclear program--that claim was absurd on its face, and anyone who fell for it in spite of contrary testimony from experts like Hans Blix and many others should probably feel a bit silly.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Which leads me to the complex question of the media--who in hindsight were ALL guilty of the worst kind of yellow journalism. CNN, CBS, NBC, Fox, etc. etc.--all were equally guilty of just jumping on the bandwagon and going along with a lead up to a war that in hindsight looks a bit foolish.

Fox's problem has been that since then they've STILL failed to ask the questions that other media outlets are beginning to ask--and as the Bush admin's talking points begin to seem ever more distant from reality, Fox looks even sillier for continually repeating them as if they came from a credible source. They're still on the bandwagon, still spouting that same yellow journalism--and it's getting embarrassing, whatever your political stripe may be.

Great points, both in the culpability of almost all media outlets and of Fox's ongoing avoidance of those questions. In many ways I think they're using the threat of Iran as a distracting talking point as a way of avoiding asking those questions.

But I think that the difference between what went on before Iraq and what's going on right now is that right now it tends to be just Fox: you don't hear the same imflammatory rhetoric on other networks for the most part (at least not on CNN); experts are brought in on either side of the debate, which is decidedly different than before Iraq. Iran is a red-herring. Their threat to the US is marginal, and the likelihood of the US escalating the situation to a war isn`t that great, either. You hear some strong rhetoric from government mouthpieces, but at the same time, the government has quietly opened up discussions with Iran for the first time in ages.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

yeah...i think the fundemental problem is that the media is afraid of being labelled as being anti-american if they came out against the war...it was very macarthy-esque down there when it comes to questioning the government after 9/11...

funny, how some general's are now saying that Iraq's culture wasn't ready for democracy...and no, this isn't hindsight nor post rationalization - plenty of people voiced that a long time ago - the administration decided not to listen, instead choosing a polyanna attitude about being "showered with candy" and roses...

laughable now...

Colin Powell said it too...and was largely ignored.