FOX News Beats the War Drum Once Again

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by octothorp

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.

I totally agree. Iraq was a much weaker country when the U.S. invaded--a war with Iran would be counterproductive, and frankly, given how stretched the U.S. military is, doomed to failure.

One of the ironic effects of Bush exerting U.S. power abroad has been to reveal what the limits of U.S. power are. If anything has "emboldened our enemies," it's that.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

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.

I believe it was gross incompetence. Read IFF post for more clarification of why.

One day I'll have to find time and go through that report. Its been on my thing to do list for the past while.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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.

I mean if you look specifically into stuff like the Yellowcake Uranium thing, it really is amazing how that 'evidence' was passed up the chain of command and used to make the case for war.

The names on the documents, which were supposed to be legitimate embassy documents had things like names/titles misspelled, not to mention they went completely unverified. I think Blix in particular looked at the documents with some of his experts and in a matter of hours were able to determine that they were blatant forgeries.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jammies

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.

Arguing semantics is fun!

I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and even agree to a point. Especially on your last point in the paragraph I quoted.

[Flash Walken]

If one source is the source of information for two intelligence agencies, and the one intelligence agency uses the other for confirmation, it creates an echo chamber. When newspaper sources are receiving this 'confirmed' intelligence and spreading it to their highly influential commentators and journalists, the echo chambers becomes a megaphone in a canyon. When this all happens in support of a policy position you'd like to take anyway ('securing middle eastern oil fields' or 'protecting american interests'), it's pretty easy, and convenient, to turn on the blinders and plunge ahead.

Of course, when you're paying someone millions of dollars a year to provide you with information about something, you're naturally going to keep receiving that 'information' regardless of how true it is...or ever was.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

I mean if you look specifically into stuff like the Yellowcake Uranium thing, it really is amazing how that 'evidence' was passed up the chain of command and used to make the case for war.

The names on the documents, which were supposed to be legitimate embassy documents had things like names/titles misspelled, not to mention they went completely unverified. I think Blix in particular looked at the documents with some of his experts and in a matter of hours were able to determine that they were blatant forgeries.

Yeah, I remember some of that. And in no way am I suggesting that the White House behaved honestly--there's a huge spectrum of behaviour that falls in between telling the truth 100% of the time and making something completely up. The supposed "nuclear" threat from Iraq was probably made up--as were the "links to Al-Qaeda," which ignored the fact that those groups were historical enemies.

However, I have to think they genuinely thought they would find something--ANYTHING--to make it look like Iraq was a real threat. If they had been making it up from the start, they would have planted something for themselves to find.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Some quick comments on this topic.

Fox News is not credible. Never have been, and never will be. They were the network that continued to beat the drum during the endless Clinton investigations, even after he was admonished in all but one (the blowjob). They are also the network that continues to fly high cover for the Bush admin and the Republican party. There is no centerist position with these guys, you are the right, or you are wrong. Consider...

* On September 12th, 2001, Fox News chief, Roger Ailes, sent a memo to the White House encouraging the administration to go after Iraq and assuring them they would get all cooperation in promotion of the war effort from Fox News and its affiliate stations (Bob Woodward, Bush at War).

* Fox News has been caught running propaganda for the Bush White House. Just one example.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79450,00.html

* Fox News has been caught, repeatedly, burying stories that would be detrimental to their sponsors. They actually fired two on-air reporters from Tampa over a beef hormone scandal because the reporters refused to keep the lid on the story. Something about endangerment to the public, but the network sided with the sponsor.

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q2/foxbgh.html

* Fox News has been caught fabrication quotes of Democrats and running them as actual comments, the most famous of which was a John Kerry quote.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...319075,00.html

And because of all of this...

* Fox viewers routinely are feed so much disinformation that they do not know truth from fiction. In PEW and PIPA studies Fox News viewers are routinely on the wrong side of the facts.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...t=102&lb=brusc

The Bush administration lied through its teeth. It presented faulty intelligence that the intelligence community stated was not valid. They leaked a NIE document to the New York Times, but that document had been editted and was nothing like the one submitted by the intelligence agencies. What the Bush administration left out of this leaked document, the one that was used to drum up so much support for the war, was that the intelligence presented in the NEI was still subject to much conjecture and had not been verified in any shape or form. The fact that they changed the NEI and released that to a reporter as truth, and then Bush did his State of the Union based on this same information is pretty blatant that they knew otherwise, and lied to garner the support they needed to get into Iraq.

Lastly, the media, ALL the media, was complicit with the Bush Administration after 9/11. They completely ignored their responsibility as oversight and fully engaged the administration in promoting their point of view. Only years later have the media finally started to realize their error. Some are admitting their errors and taking responsibility, some are hoping the public will forget, and others embrace it as a badge of honor in helping the war effort (shockingly, that would be Fox News). This is a great series and really lets people know how much pressure was placed on the media by the White House, politicians, corporations, sponsors and watchers. The patriotic bluster that developed after 9/11 hindered the media as much as anything. It does sound like they learned their lesson though.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

[Bingo]

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.

This is the stuff that just kills me

You don't know a damn thing. You think a bunch, we all do. You have your own subjective opinions, we all do.

You don't KNOW squat.

Nor do I ... I just don't run around professing that I do.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

huh...

right back at you ...

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

If one source is the source of information for two intelligence agencies, and the one intelligence agency uses the other for confirmation, it creates an echo chamber. When newspaper sources are receiving this 'confirmed' intelligence and spreading it to their highly influential commentators and journalists, the echo chambers becomes a megaphone in a canyon. When this all happens in support of a policy position you'd like to take anyway ('securing middle eastern oil fields' or 'protecting american interests'), it's pretty easy, and convenient, to turn on the blinders and plunge ahead.

Of course, when you're paying someone millions of dollars a year to provide you with information about something, you're naturally going to keep receiving that 'information' regardless of how true it is...or ever was.

See i agree with that 100%

But for all purposes and not just the reasons to go into Iraq. It's happening over and over again in almost every single big issue of our time. It's a real shame too ... hard to know what is a fact any more.

Take the recent Newsweek article on global warming that has been ripped to shreads for inaccuracies. Still being quoted as fact all over the place and because people have heard of Newsweek it's gospel.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

This is the stuff that just kills me

You don't know a damn thing. You think a bunch, we all do. You have your own subjective opinions, we all do.

You don't KNOW squat.

Nor do I ... I just don't run around professing that I do.

Wow. Bingo takes a stand. Well done my friend. One comment though.

I take your opinion on what you do for a living (I am not going to post that for your security) as you have the training and expertise in this regard. Are you willing to extend that same courtesy to others who have the expertise and training, along with the research time, to comment in their area of expertise, even if it conflicts with your beliefs?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

Quoting Moyers to point out bias in media?

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Wow. Bingo takes a stand. Well done my friend. One comment though.

I take your opinion on what you do for a living (I am not going to post that for your security) as you have the training and expertise in this regard. Are you willing to extend that same courtesy to others who have the expertise and training, along with the research time, to comment in their area of expertise, even if it conflicts with your beliefs?

I take stands all the time, you just don't recognize them because their not laced in personal attacks and insults.

Two things ...

1. When have you ever taken my opinion? A bit tongue in cheek but honeslty ... not sure it's happened all that much.
2. Reading the internet is not an expertise for the very reasons I've pointed out in this string. You can't trust any of the research out there. All of it is getting beaten to shreds. I'm not saying only the stuff I disagree with. When I find something I like to believe I research against it, and find holes in it too.

So what courtesy pray tell do I owe to someone when I'm merely pointing out that neither he nor I "KNOW" anything, and that opinion is driving a person to make statements that suggest otherwise?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Quoting Moyers to point out bias in media?

Hate to break it to you Bingo, but viewers/listeners of PBS are much more informed and accurate in their knowledge of current events than any other media outlet. Moyers is one of those who have a very squeaky clean reputation in media circles as being honest and extremely accurate. Moyers is likely the most trustworthy news media personality in the US at the moment, and his record has earned him that honor.

Interestingly enough, the opposite end of the spectrum? Fox News and, your pal, Bill O'Reilly. Both Fox News and O'Reilly hit the top of the charts for inaccuracy and their viewers being out of touch with current events. Remember when I said that watching Fox News will rot your brain? Seems studies have proven that to be a factual statement.

[Flash Walken]

Bill Moyers is one of the most respected journalists in America...but I guess when it comes to credibility, he's no Neil Cavuto!

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bingo

I take stands all the time, you just don't recognize them because their not laced in personal attacks and insults.

Two things ...

1. When have you ever taken my opinion? A bit tongue in cheek but honeslty ... not sure it's happened all that much.
2. Reading the internet is not an expertise for the very reasons I've pointed out in this string. You can't trust any of the research out there. All of it is getting beaten to shreds. I'm not saying only the stuff I disagree with. When I find something I like to believe I research against it, and find holes in it too.

So what courtesy pray tell do I owe to someone when I'm merely pointing out that neither he nor I "KNOW" anything, and that opinion is driving a person to make statements that suggest otherwise?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

right back at you ...

I don't understand. I'm not claiming otherwise.

Originally Posted by Bingo

See i agree with that 100%

But for all purposes and not just the reasons to go into Iraq. It's happening over and over again in almost every single big issue of our time. It's a real shame too ... hard to know what is a fact any more.

Actually, I think it is pretty easy to know what is fact.

Fact: It is against international law to unilaterally (or otherwise) attack a nation.

Fact: there are numerous examples of private interests (read: corporations) actively leading militant foreign and domestic policy to destructive (for everyone else) ends.

Fact: these private interests are incredibly powerful, and their range of influence incredibly broad.

Fact: Most of these interests have incorporated 'media' outlets as part of their corporate fabric, essentially as in-house PR representatives.

These are all facts. If you put them together, you see how policy is driven. I can give you incredibly specific examples (down to dollar amounts) of these occurances, all in easily obtainable record.

[Bingo]

Flash, Lanny ...

you guys can attempt to paint me into a Fox corner all you like, I've said up and down over and over again that I'm not a Foxophant, I try to read pretty near every single piece of news I can get my hands on, both sides, network, blog, commentators, you name it.

If you choose not to believe me fine, but spare me the "your buddy O'Reilly" and Nick Cavuto comments, ... it's beneath you. You're both smarter than that.

But a quick look around (you seem to love research Lanny) will point out all kinds of sticky issues of conflict of interest and Liberal leanings from Moyers ... and the man refuses to explain himself.

But my point isn't to see who can show the most links to people that either prove or disprove something ... we can both find both. So great for us. And that's the problem, and that's all I've ever said.

It seems all journalism is tainted, ALL, and facts are hard to come by.

[Bingo]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Actually, I think it is pretty easy to know what is fact.

Fact: It is against international law to unilaterally (or otherwise) attack a nation.

Fact: there are numerous examples of private interests (read: corporations) actively leading militant foreign and domestic policy to destructive (for everyone else) ends.

Fact: these private interests are incredibly powerful, and their range of influence incredibly broad.

Fact: Most of these interests have incorporated 'media' outlets as part of their corporate fabric, essentially as in-house PR representatives.

These are all facts. If you put them together, you see how policy is driven. I can give you incredibly specific examples (down to dollar amounts) of these occurances, all in easily obtainable record.

Those are statements ... in themselves I don't know if I would call them facts.

I'm not 11, I get that there are influence groups, money, power pushing agendas all over the world. I've never claimed anything in to the contrary. But a source that says that the Iraq war was about oil because of x and y and z isn't necessarily a fact, and that's my point.

I've read comprehensive articles that list the WMDs that were taken out of the country into Syria, about receipts from other nations for materials needed to produce WMDs and then it never flows into the main media. Why? A conspiracy of left leaning journalists that don't want to support Bush? Possibly ... or maybe that information wasn't all that solid to begin with.

I lean to the latter, and I think a lot of your facts when drilled down to specifics might be the same.

Sometimes governments in tough situations make tough decisions that end up not being correct in the end.

Happens.

But spare me the Fox lover crap ... waste of all of our time. I don't feel the need to insult you.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Bingo

Those are statements ... in themselves I don't know if I would call them facts.

I'm not 11, I get that there are influence groups, money, power pushing agendas all over the world. I've never claimed anything in to the contrary. But a source that says that the Iraq war was about oil because of x and y and z isn't necessarily a fact, and that's my point.

I've read comprehensive articles that list the WMDs that were taken out of the country into Syria, about receipts from other nations for materials needed to produce WMDs and then it never flows into the main media. Why? A conspiracy of left leaning journalists that don't want to support Bush? Possibly ... or maybe that information wasn't all that solid to begin with.

I lean to the latter, and I think a lot of your facts when drilled down to specifics might be the same.

Sometimes governments in tough situations make tough decisions that end up not being correct in the end.

Happens.

But spare me the Fox lover crap ... waste of all of our time. I don't feel the need to insult you.

I haven't mentioned you watching fox once in this thread.

If you're willing to dismiss everything you read or hear as 'i would call those statements instead of facts' and 'governments in tough situations make tough decisions' then I really can't say anything else except that you should invest in some good earplugs. Sand in the ear is a real pain.