Gotta love FOX

[billvon 2,471]

On Feb 23, FOX News anchor David Asman suggested that civil war within Iraq might actually be a good thing. While he was interviewing several guests on the show FOX News Live, the captions "All-out civil war in Iraq - could it be a good thing?" and "Upside to civil war?" appeared behind him

Today FOX News anchor Neil Cavuto asked the question "is the Iraq civil war just being 'made up' by unscrupulous media outlets?" As he spoke the caption "Civil war in Iraq - made up by the media?" was posted on the screen.

Can you imagine? What unscrupulous media outlets would do such a thing?

Next week on FOX - "Are some media outlets questioning whether the Iraqi civil war is real or not?" And the week after that - "The News and You - are we confusing you, or are you all going to keep watching us no matter what we say?"

[Duckwater 0]

It would sure make for an interesting Civil War Chess Set from the Franklin Mint!


Fox News Bulletin: Mike Skaggs has never got laid

The Bastards!

--

[rushmc 18]

Do you think there is a civil war going on over there?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,151]

Quote

Do you think there is a civil war going on over there?

I think there is a big clusterfuck going on and there is nobody to blame but Bush and Rummy.

What do you think?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Do you think there is a civil war going on over there?

I think there is a big clusterfuck going on and there is nobody to blame but Bush and Rummy.

What do you think?

Blah blah blah

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GTAVercetti 0]

well, that was clever.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[SkyDekker 1,151]

Unfortunate. It was a serious question. I gave you my honest opinion, I was hoping for yours.

[Lindsey 0]

There will be plenty of people who so desparately need to defend their president against the "Liberals" who think we've made a terrible mistake that they'll buy that bologna....baloney. I think we'll se it here first. (That is if the "the liberals caused us to fail by their negative thoughts" angle fails)

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[L.O. 0]

There has been a limited civil war going on in that part of the world since long long before the coming of christ-I use the term only to establish of time line-. The lifestyles of the middle-easterners have kept them in the stone ages. We have evolved to a moral high ground that the rest of the world cannot except. I think we need to leave them to reach this higher plain without our help.

HPDBs, I hate those guys.
AFB, charter member.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Unfortunate. It was a serious question. I gave you my honest opinion, I was hoping for yours.

Alright, I will give it a shot.

I have looked back at comments and opinions that are in print after the end of WW II. If many of them were printed today without a date one would think they were printed today (this is a comment about wars the US has been in in general.)

With the above in mind. I have been on line with people on the ground over there. Some of them I knew before they went, some I have never met. Talking with them has proven to me that what is happening over in Iraq is a spectacular success! (and I do understand the high cost) But NBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, CNN can't report the success because the polical rehlm they live in will be damaged by those stories. So, they choose to report half truths and out of context info (such as the Coast Gaurd report on the ports) to support thier party and by doing so hurt and (I think) kill our troops.

The Bush lied speaking points by the left is all they got.

The point that Fox made about the media created civil war is very close to being right on track if you care to do some looking. Hell, there was even an interview with an Clinton era person that said the same thing on one of the Sunday talking heads shows (not fox) The troops and generals don't think we are even close to a civil war over there. Is shit happening? Yes. But again, civil war fits the medias template of what they want (need) to happen so the left can get back into power.

Follow that with the fact that every Republican President has been called stuipid in my life time supports even more the fact that the left has nothing to offer.

NOTE: I do not approve of all that Bush is doing but I thank God that Al Gore or Kerry were not in office when 911 happened. If they had been it is my opinion that we would have been attacked again by now.

It is ugly, costly and will take a long time over there, but the troops that have been over there have been re-inlisting at record rates for a reason.

I rambled, but maybe that will give you and idea of where I come from.

Honest debate? Ideas? Bring them on. That is what this country is about. Name calling and manuvering for political gain, regardless of the cost. I have no time for that....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Trent 0]

Quote

Can you imagine? What unscrupulous media outlets would do such a thing?

Unless you watched both broadcasts, are you SURE that the first show wasn't talking about a hypothetical IF an all out civil war broke out, would it be good? Just from what you posted, I can't assume that FOX was saying "There IS a civil war in Iraq, is that good?" Since most of the media is jabbering about a civil war anyway, it's pretty valid to ask questions about whether or not it might be good.

The "made up by the media" line is pretty unsurprising given the BS that our media has shoveled towards us about the war. It's not really a stretch to imagine that outlets are exaggerating to make people watch.

One one hand, maybe you're right... maybe Cavuto was bashing his own network too. Good for him and good for FOX for letting it happen. On the other hand, maybe you're misunderstanding the stories here and just propagated something that was forwarded to you. There is the chance that you actually watched both broadcasts, but what would you be doing watching FOX instead of listening to NPR or whatever?

Oh, hello again!

[jakee 1,279]

Quote

There has been a limited civil war going on in that part of the world since long long before the coming of christ-I use the term only to establish of time line.

Well, I guess you could say that the current troubles are really just echos of the turmoil caused by the death of Alexander of Macedon. Or perhaps from when the Medes conquered the Lydians?

Quote

The lifestyles of the middle-easterners have kept them in the stone ages. We have evolved to a moral high ground that the rest of the world cannot except. I think we need to leave them to reach this higher plain without our help.

At the time of the crusades the Islamic middle-east was the centre of the world in terms of maths, science and culture. Back then it was us draggiing them down to our moral level. Of course things have changed now but the long pattern of foreign occupation may need to be considered before you blame it all on 'their' lifestyle.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,471]

>. . . . the fact that the left has nothing to offer.

I should create a little "whoosh" symbol so I don't have to type it so often.

I'm not suprised several right wingers missed the point here, so I will retry with a hypothetical set of headlines from a media outlet they like less, CNN:

-----------------------

Day 1 -

Shark attack off Point Loma - 18 year old fisherman is attacked - Loses his hand but will recover

Day 2 -

Unsafe at any depth - deepwater shark attacks on the rise
The Deadly Menace - Can you keep your family safe?
Survival in the water - Other survivors recount their deadly tales

Day 3 -

Shark scare - is the shark threat real, or is it is media creation?

--------------

Get it now? Tail wagging dog, media reporting on media and not on what's actually happening.

I'm not suprised right wingers didn't get this. By and large they are getting their cues from the current administration, and the administration is far more interested in what gets reported in the media than by what's happening. Recently Bush was speaking to a foreign leader via a translator, and ended their conversation with a little speech about fighting terror etc. He ended with "don't translate that." He didn't want the guy he was talking to to understand what he was saying, he just wanted the media to pick it up. All the notes recently released from the pre-war planning meetings make it clear that the issue wasn't determining what was really going on in Iraq, but rather what justification would get the most traction politically and in the media. As Wolfowitz said, "WMD became the reason upon which we could all bureaucratically agree."

This is true here too. We actually had a poster here who said that many of the problems in Iraq can be traced back to people making bad predictions about it! Even though those predictions turned out to be correct! The now-many torture incidents - we had people here who were not outraged about the torture itself, but outraged that the pictures were shown. Because when that happens, their side loses.

I think the right wing is in for a pretty rude shock here pretty soon. The media, by and large, have been reporting on what they have been told to report on. The NYT reported on WMD threats but did not investigate them, an omission they apologized for later. Outlets like CNN and FOX report presidential speeches verbatim with no real commentary, just right wing extremists and left wing extremists going off with their particular spin - and this is called balanced reporting. I can remember when balanced reporting involved just printing the speech, providing historical background and pointing out factual inaccuracies. But if the battle is truly in the media and not in Iraq, then those talking head right wingers are the real front line troops - and they have to be willing to sacrifice everything, from truth to reputation, to 'win' the media war for their side.

Now events are unfolding in Iraq that cannot be spun, although they are still trying. After the media's report of a few hundred dead, an Iraqi morgue reported it was closer to 1300 in one city alone. I think perhaps the administration (and their supporters) would do well to spend less effort trying to put the right spin on things, and more on dealing with the crisis they have created. The former will soon overtake the latter.

[rushmc 18]

I really don't know what planet you get your info from..... Most of your points are your opinions, many of which (if not all) I do not agree with. If the media was getting their points from administation you think they would be reporting on torture (that really did not happen to the degree the media reported) The FISA thing (which the media and the left has tolatlly screwed around to support thier world template ect ect ect.

How about the media report on the Coast Gaurd comments on the Ports deal? Is that what the all powerfull , media leading admin would have wanted ?? Especially when you look at the fact that the report was 3 weeks old and the last line in the Washington Times article stated that the Coast Gaurd had gotten the answers and were comfortable with the sale. Did you hear that in the Bush's media.

As far as your "whosh" comment. I PM'd you one other time before to ask you WTF you were talking about but you did not care to respond.

You want to make a point,.... make if f%&$ing clearer...... Not everbody thinks like you (even though you would like them too....)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,471]

>If the media was getting their points from administation you think
>they would be reporting on torture . . .

You mean the opposite, right?

>(that really did not happen to the degree the media reported)

It's actually happened a lot MORE than the media reported, at least on the front pages of the bigger media outlets. It's become old news, and they've been attacked for "helping the enemy" so they backed off of that pretty fast. Did you hear about the latest round of torture pictures, from a few weeks ago? No? You'd have to go to the Guardian to get the info on that.

>How about the media report on the Coast Gaurd comments on
>the Ports deal? Is that what the all powerfull , media leading admin
>would have wanted ?

Nope, that backfired on them. They made a big deal that the Coast Guard, not the company operating the ports, would still enforce port security. Which primed the media to ask the Coast Guard about it. Had the administration not made a big deal about the Coast Guard, that report would have never been asked about.

>You want to make a point,.... make if f%&$ing clearer...... Not
>everbody thinks like you (even though you would like them too....)

Nor would I want them to - nor do they have to respond.

[Trent 0]

I re-read my post to make sure that I didn't confuse anything by mentioning Bush, the White House, or this administration. I naively thought that this topic was about... well... the topic stated. You got drooling over some email that someone sent you or some headline on a blog somewhere and wanted to bash FOX. I pointed out a couple of situations that might have been, based on the feeble information you provided. You then go on to point out that us conservatives missed the point, and your more intelligent viewpoint is blah blah blah, I don't like Bush, conservatives only listen to the media that propagates Bush's lies, the REAL story cannot be hidden. I'm not surprised that you try such a big turnaround like that.

What YOU have whooshing over your head is the fact that you look down upon those who are looking at media (FOX, CNN, etc) to get their news... but YOU somehow have access to "The Truth" which let's you know what is REALLY going on in the world without ever having to actually witness it.

Oh, hello again!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>If the media was getting their points from administation you think
>they would be reporting on torture . . .

You mean the opposite, right?

>(that really did not happen to the degree the media reported)

It's actually happened a lot MORE than the media reported, .

Evidence, you need evidence to make that accusation. You don't have it and niether does the media and that is the ONLY reason they let it go. Making that kind of blind accusation is just palin iresponcible.......


at least on the front pages of the bigger media outlets. It's become old news, and they've been attacked for "helping the enemy" so they backed off of that pretty fast. Did you hear about the latest round of torture pictures, from a few weeks ago? No? You'd have to go to the Guardian to get the info on that..

[billvon 2,471]

>Evidence, you need evidence to make that accusation.
>You don't have it and niether does the media . . .

?? What the heck are you talking about? Blair's wife gave a speech about it - fact. A UN human rights chief said abuses now were as bad as under Hussein - fact. They are holding back on the story because they don't want to seem negative. Sorta blows the whole "liberal press" thing out of the water, especially given that the right wing applauds them when they publish fiction about Saddam buying uranium from Africa, and lament that they don't post happy stories about Iraq.

>Wrong, the left went nuts on it at the media reported
>every one of thier stupid comments.

The administration made it VERY CLEAR that the coast guard, not the company controlling the ports, was responsible for security. The press then obediently checked out what the coast guard had said about it. And lo and behold - they did see an issue! Which was later rectified after they did some investigation. Which is extremely relevant when trying to decide whether further investigation is warranted.

>Further more. In onther threads you (and others) have asked for
>details and info. Then, when posted, (most of the time in full
>support of my position) Nothing.......silence. So, do you think the
>info is bad or is talking to it to damaging to your positon??

Well:

1. sometimes I skydive
2. sometimes I work
3. sometimes I am perfectly willing to let threads die after the people involved post the same stuff for the 127th time. I guess I could write canned responses to "but . . . but . . . . Clinton got a blowjob!" but somehow I don't think people posting canned replies is a good thing to aspire to.

[rushmc 18]

UN? There is a joke right from the start. And you want me to believe that they hold back a story like that but they will OUT a classified LEGAL program. You are really reaching here

The info I posted on the FISA crap was new to the tread and probalbly new to you. You let it die because maybe you could not counter it??


The Coast Gaurd report was nearly a month old. They had gotten answers to thier concerns BEFORE the news report or that info was buried in the last line of and article.

You are way to deep into black helo tales.........

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,471]

>UN? There is a joke right from the start.

On their worst day they couldn't screw up as big as we did in Iraq. We have handily stolen the spotlight from the UN as the world's fuckup. And we should NOT be proud of that. We should be trying to fix it, not defend it as a really swell decision.

>You are way to deep into black helo tales.........

You admit they are correct, then you call them black helicopter tales. Whatever. I think the republican's days are numbered, partly because of the sort of shrill nonsensical counterattacks you see from them nowadays.

[kallend 1,679]

Quote

I really don't know what planet you get your info from.....

At least it's unlikely to be Planet Newsmax.

Irony score 9.9

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 18]

Perdiction

Rebulicans pick up two seats in the Senate and more than that in the house.

In any event, you at least have reasons supporting your views. You and I can not be more oposite but this is what it is.

History will show us who was right.

Marc

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I really don't know what planet you get your info from.....

At least it's unlikely to be Planet Newsmax.

Irony score 9.9

hmm I will take Newsmax and Fox over any of the main stream lefty media to get closer to the truth.

Anyway,I wondered where you have been, but you have to get the newsmax tatoo off your inner eyelids. That is all I hear from you anymore.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Perdiction

Rebulicans pick up two seats in the Senate and more than that in the house.

In any event, you at least have reasons supporting your views. You and I can not be more oposite but this is what it is.

History will show us who was right.

Marc

history has shown that mid term elections favor the party out of power. Is your 2+ prediction based on viewing the 33 races, or just a thin air - they'll win by a little - type?

[purnell 0]

Quote

3. sometimes I am perfectly willing to let threads die after the people involved post the same stuff for the 127th time. I guess I could write canned responses to "but . . . but . . . . Clinton got a blowjob!" but somehow I don't think people posting canned replies is a good thing to aspire to.

Um, Bill, 9 out of 68 posts that reference "Clinton" and "Blowjob" are yours (just over 13%). No one else comes close. You really should give the poor guy a break!