Fox News Is The Most-Watched Network, Even By The Left! :-D

[Little Kate Chaos]

When it comes to politics and current affairs I see you as a rabid extremist WHAB, in the Ben or Jihadist mould. The story will always be fitted to you seeing the US as goodies on everything no matter the event every single time. No worries though, despite that you seem a likable guy.

I am not going to play semantics on WMDs and Iraq with you WHAB. The whole world saw it for it what it was post-invasion. Even that clown IQ-lacking of a President of your's stopped playing the 'WMD threat' card pretty soon after invasion.

Stick to your UN card. That organisation you see with contempt until it's mechanisms fits in to justifying your rabid, extremist view of what's right/wrong.

Iraq was a complete disaster from start to when it finishes. Sliding in to sectarian violence and now Iran have more influence in there than the US has.

'We' screwed up. Only the extremists can claim otherwise or somehow justify the death and destruction on what was the actual WMD threat.

[Intrinsic]

Furthermore, those that watch CBS are those that STILL believe the fraudulent documents Dan Rather produced just months before the 2004 election in an effort to influence that election (with FORGERIES that caused resignations and terminations within CBS)

Since you don’t know(possibly from relying on Fox): those were presented to the white house first to verify their authenticity and asking permission to re-print them. That Administration sent them back refused to state they are forgeries even tho they knew at the time, Thuss the White House gave CBS a green light to publish them. The original leak of those documents came from Cheney and/or Rove.
It was a set up, Rove has a record of doing this cheap trick before. D’OH!

ANY WMD's discovered in Iraq WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FOUND AT ALL. You and the Left CLAIM they didn't exist AT ALL, yet they surely did...

No they didn’t, the only evidence was listing to the chatter of Saddams’ generals telling him what he wanted to hear. If they told the truth (they had no WMD capability) it would cost them and their families life. The CIA knew this and said so, but it was cherry picked out.

Second, Since you, as a fox News Watcher and fan, still believe Iraq/Saddam had huge stockpiles of illegal weapons of mass destruction … Says it all.

[WhiteHotAfterburner]

When it comes to politics and current affairs I see you as a rabid extremist WHAB, in the Ben or Jihadist mould. The story will always be fitted to you seeing the US as goodies on everything no matter the event every single time. No worries though, despite that you seem a likable guy.

I am not going to play semantics on WMDs and Iraq with you WHAB. The whole world saw it for it what it was post-invasion. Even that clown IQ-lacking of a President of your's stopped playing the 'WMD threat' card pretty soon after invasion.

Stick to your UN card. That organisation you see with contempt until it's mechanisms fits in to justifying your rabid, extremist view of what's right/wrong.

Iraq was a complete disaster from start to when it finishes. Sliding in to sectarian violence and now Iran have more influence in there than the US has.

'We' screwed up. Only the extremists can claim otherwise or somehow justify the death and destruction on what was the actual WMD threat.

When it comes to politics and current affairs I see you as a rabid extremist WHAB

Well, Kate, it wouldn't be the first time you'd be wrong, now would it?

The story will always be fitted to you seeing the US as goodies on everything no matter the event every single time.

Bullshit, Kate. I have specifically acknowledged our nation's and its representatives faults where laying fault is due. I'm not going to admit fault where NONE exists. Saddam needed to be taken down and he was.

I am not going to play semantics on WMDs and Iraq with you WHAB

Good, let's not...let's deal with the facts, Kate.

Were WMD's in ANY form discovered in Iraq post March 20th, 2003? No semantics, just the facts! Were they?

Were proscribed weapons or systems found in Iraq post March 20th, 2003? No semantics, just the facts! Were they?

,
WHAB

[WhiteHotAfterburner]

Furthermore, those that watch CBS are those that STILL believe the fraudulent documents Dan Rather produced just months before the 2004 election in an effort to influence that election (with FORGERIES that caused resignations and terminations within CBS)

Since you don’t know(possibly from relying on Fox): those were presented to the white house first to verify their authenticity and asking permission to re-print them. That Administration sent them back refused to state they are forgeries even tho they knew at the time, Thuss the White House gave CBS a green light to publish them. The original leak of those documents came from Cheney and/or Rove.
It was a set up, Rove has a record of doing this cheap trick before. D’OH!

ANY WMD's discovered in Iraq WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FOUND AT ALL. You and the Left CLAIM they didn't exist AT ALL, yet they surely did...

No they didn’t, the only evidence was listing to the chatter of Saddams’ generals telling him what he wanted to hear. If they told the truth (they had no WMD capability) it would cost them and their families life. The CIA knew this and said so, but it was cherry picked out.

Second, Since you, as a fox News Watcher and fan, still believe Iraq/Saddam had huge stockpiles of illegal weapons of mass destruction … Says it all.

Bullshit, Int.

You've either been dropped on your head. Severely beaten about the head when the bullies robbed you of your lunch money in school. Or, currently under the influence of heavy doses of hallucinogenics...

Since you don't know (or for the reasons stated above)...

CBS News Admits Bush Documents Can’t Be Verified

‘We shouldn't have used them,’ executive states

9/21/2004

NEW YORK — CBS News apologized Monday for a “mistake in judgment” in its story questioning President Bush’s National Guard service, claiming it was misled by the source of documents that several experts have dismissed as fakes.

The network said it would appoint an independent panel to look at its reporting about the memos. The story has mushroomed into a major media scandal, threatening the reputations of CBS News and chief anchor Dan Rather.

It also has become an issue in the presidential campaign. The White House said the affair raises questions about the connections between CBS’s source, retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, and Democrat John Kerry’s campaign.

Rather joined CBS News President Andrew Heyward in issuing an apology Monday.

“We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry,” Rather said. “It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.”

Almost immediately after the story aired Sept. 8, document experts questioned memos purportedly written by Bush’s late squadron leader, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, saying they appeared to have been created on a computer and not on the kind of typewriter in use during the 1970s.

Source admits fabrication

CBS strongly defended its story. It wasn’t until a week later — after Killian’s former secretary said she believed the memos were fake — that the news division admitted they were questionable.

Burkett admitted this weekend to CBS that he lied about obtaining the documents from another former National Guard member, the network said. CBS hasn’t been able to conclusively tell how he got them, or even definitely tell whether they’re fakes or not. But the network has given up trying to defend them.

“Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report,” Heyward said. “We should not have used them.”

CBS said it approached Burkett initially about the documents. Rather said Burkett was well known in National Guard circles for several years for trying to discredit Bush’s military record.

Burkett, in an interview with Rather aired on the “CBS Evening News,” said he was pressured by CBS to reveal his source for the documents, and “I simply threw out a name that was basically, I guess, to get a little pressure off for the moment.”

‘I did mislead you ...’

He said he didn’t fake or forge any documents. “I didn’t totally mislead you,” he said. “I did mislead you about one individual.”

Burkett said he also insisted that CBS authenticate the documents on its own. Two document experts consulted by CBS later said they raised red flags that network officials apparently disregarded. Rather acknowledged CBS failed to properly determine whether the documents were genuine.
~snip

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6055248/ns/politics/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On January 5, 2005, the Report of the Independent Review Panel on the September 8, 2004, 60 Minutes Wednesday Segment "For the Record" Concerning President Bush's Air National Guard Service was released. The purpose of the panel was to examine the process by which the September 8 Segment was prepared and broadcast, to examine the circumstances surrounding the subsequent public statements and news reports by CBS News defending the segment, and to make any recommendations it deemed appropriate. Among the Panel's conclusions were the following:

The most serious defects in the reporting and production of the September 8 Segment were:

1.The failure to obtain clear authentication of any of the Killian documents from any document examiner;

2.The false statement in the September 8 Segment that an expert had authenticated the Killian documents when all he had done was authenticate one signature from one document used in the Segment;

3.The failure of 60 Minutes Wednesday management to scrutinize the publicly available, and at times controversial, background of the source of the documents, retired Texas Army National Guard Lieutenant Colonel Bill Burkett;

4.The failure to find and interview the individual who was understood at the outset to be Lieutenant Colonel Burkett’s source of the Killian documents, and thus to establish the chain of custody;

5.The failure to establish a basis for the statement in the Segment that the documents "were taken from Colonel Killian’s personal files";

6.The failure to develop adequate corroboration to support the statements in the Killian documents and to carefully compare the Killian documents to official TexANG records, which would have identified, at a minimum, notable inconsistencies in content and format;

7.The failure to interview a range of former National Guardsmen who served with Lieutenant Colonel Killian and who had different perspectives about the documents;

8.The misleading impression conveyed in the Segment that Lieutenant Strong had authenticated the content of the documents when he did not have the personal knowledge to do so;

9.The failure to have a vetting process capable of dealing effectively with the production speed, significance and sensitivity of the Segment; and

10.The telephone call prior to the Segment’s airing by the producer of the Segment to a senior campaign official of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry — a clear conflict of interest — that created the appearance of a political bias.

Once questions were raised about the September 8 Segment, the reporting thereafter was mishandled and compounded the damage done. Among the more egregious shortcomings during the Aftermath were:

1.The strident defense of the September 8 Segment by CBS News without adequately probing whether any of the questions raised had merit;

2.Allowing many of the same individuals who produced and vetted the by-then controversial September 8 Segment to also produce the follow-up news reports defending the Segment;

3.The inaccurate press statements issued by CBS News after the broadcast of the Segment that the source of the documents was “unimpeachable” and that experts had vouched for their authenticity;

4.The misleading stories defending the Segment that aired on the CBS Evening News after September 8 despite strong and multiple indications of serious flaws;

5.The efforts by 60 Minutes Wednesday to find additional document examiners who would vouch for the authenticity of the documents instead of identifying the best examiners available regardless of whether they would support this position; and

6.Preparing news stories that sought to support the Segment, instead of providing accurate and balanced coverage of a raging controversy.

Panel's view of the documents

The Panel did not undertake a thorough examination of the authenticity of the Killian documents, but consulted Peter Tytell, a New York City-based forensic document examiner and typewriter and typography expert. Tytell had been contacted by 60 Minutes producers prior to the broadcast, and had informed associate producer Yvonne Miller and executive producer Josh Howard on September 10 that he believed the documents were forgeries. The Panel report stated, "The Panel met with Peter Tytell, and found his analysis sound in terms of why he thought the documents were not authentic...The Panel reaches no conclusion as to whether Tytell was correct in all respects."

Second, Since you...still believe Iraq/Saddam had huge stockpiles of illegal weapons of mass destruction … Says it all.

WHAB wrote...

Large caches? No. Massive caches? No. Evidence of WMD's in Iraq? Yes.

D’OH! Says it all...



,
WHAB

[Sun]

Saddam advanced Iraq in 25 years more than any 25 year period in America

[Little Kate Chaos]

WHAB, if you're satisfied on the WMD threat claim pre-invasion against any eventual finds of WMDs post-invasion and see it as all worth it, then good for you. I spent months there in 2009 on pop-star wages and the place was still in turmoil. And the UK was getting out from the mess it helped create as fast as it could. Cut and run.

There is no debate on WMDs anymore, the whole planet knows the facts and beyond how it was got so wrong now, as per the Chilcott Inquiry currently bimbling along. Maybe you should dap over to London and put your 2pennysworth in to Chilcott??

Juicey, Saddam was a walking disaster for the Iraqi people. A pointless, lengthy extremely costly war in lives and $ with Iran, alienated his people from the world, attacked Kuwait where his army raped and pillaged Kuwait that caused a backlash that sent his people back 50 years, the slam down of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs and ultimately the whole place imploded on itself because of the nutjob.

You'd prefer to live in the US over Saddam's Iraq any day, no??

[Intrinsic]

Bullshit, Int.
...Or, currently under the influence of heavy doses of hallucinogenics...

Seven, if your counting.

Yes the docs were given to the White House to peruse. And the WH did not verify them to be forgeries. The WH did not verify ‘em to be real, rather the WH refused to make a comment, tho they knew.
I was there and my memory aint that shot.

Evidence of WMD's in Iraq? Yes

No they didn’t, the only evidence was listing to the chatter of Saddams’ generals telling him what he wanted to hear. If they told the truth (they had no WMD capability) it would cost them and their families life. The CIA knew this and said so, but it was cherry picked out.

I sure don’t remember the Government giving any compelling evidence whatsoever. Maybe Fox/you stil trust Chalabi too. Lordy knows Powell trashed his reputation with his obvious UN farce. It was then and still is obvious to be a whitewash of the facts. Now I Distinctly remember Fox News claiming there was proof, never actually given it, only “some say” “liberal are always wrong” or such bullshit reporting. But that is Fox for ya.

Large caches? No. Massive caches? No. Evidence of WMD's in Iraq? Yes.

You and the Left CLAIM they didn't exist AT ALL, yet they surely did...

See you just said you believe “yet they surely did” exist.

But even if I misread you, it is no better that you, as a fox viewer, still persist on believing there was real evidence of WMDs, ignorant of the cherry picking being reported at the time.
Still says it all. D’OH!

[Sun]

You'd prefer to live in the US over Saddam's Iraq any day, no??

Not qualified to answer that without bias....But he took Iraq from the stone ages and modernised it in a very short amount of time...No one had TV's, phones, refrigerators, AC's or paved roads before he came along, by the end of his time those were all very common things.

[WhiteHotAfterburner]

WHAB, if you're satisfied on the WMD threat claim pre-invasion against any eventual finds of WMDs post-invasion and see it as all worth it, then good for you. I spent months there in 2009 on pop-star wages and the place was still in turmoil. And the UK was getting out from the mess it helped create as fast as it could. Cut and run.

There is no debate on WMDs anymore, the whole planet knows the facts and beyond how it was got so wrong now, as per the Chilcott Inquiry currently bimbling along. Maybe you should dap over to London and put your 2pennysworth in to Chilcott??

Juicey, Saddam was a walking disaster for the Iraqi people. A pointless, lengthy extremely costly war in lives and $ with Iran, alienated his people from the world, attacked Kuwait where his army raped and pillaged Kuwait that caused a backlash that sent his people back 50 years, the slam down of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs and ultimately the whole place imploded on itself because of the nutjob.

You'd prefer to live in the US over Saddam's Iraq any day, no??

I never, ever said that, Kate. I have always said that I wished they'd never said the words WMD. There was plenty of reasons without uttering those words. It was a mistake to use it in their reasoning to take Saddam down....they didn't need to.

But, to say the didn't find ANY evidence of WMD's is incorrect. The did, indeed, find evidence of WMD's....not massive stockpiles, or huge caches, but they did find them.

IF WMD's didn't exist in Iraq post March 20th, 2003 how did they find ANY evidence of them? That United States President, George W Bush didn't wave in the air EVERY round or shell or container that was discovered should prove to anyone that he was playing most fair in that regard, yet you still demean him and his obvious intelligence

Do you have degrees from TWO prestigious colleges (not ONE, but TWO--Yale AND Harvard)? Can you fly the fastest interceptor aircraft in your country's inventory (as IF they provide that opportunity to dunderheads )? He did and can

Not to mention the other PROSCRIBED weapons and systems that were discovered that Saddam was not supposed to be in possession of and swore to the world he didn't have.

It seems some people STILL believe that tripe

I hope you had a pleasant stay in Iraq

Take care, Kate!,
WHAB

[WhiteHotAfterburner]

Bullshit, Int.
...Or, currently under the influence of heavy doses of hallucinogenics...

Seven, if your counting.

Yes the docs were given to the White House to peruse. And the WH did not verify them to be forgeries. The WH did not verify ‘em to be real, rather the WH refused to make a comment, tho they knew.
I was there and my memory aint that shot.

Evidence of WMD's in Iraq? Yes

No they didn’t, the only evidence was listing to the chatter of Saddams’ generals telling him what he wanted to hear. If they told the truth (they had no WMD capability) it would cost them and their families life. The CIA knew this and said so, but it was cherry picked out.

I sure don’t remember the Government giving any compelling evidence whatsoever. Maybe Fox/you stil trust Chalabi too. Lordy knows Powell trashed his reputation with his obvious UN farce. It was then and still is obvious to be a whitewash of the facts. Now I Distinctly remember Fox News claiming there was proof, never actually given it, only “some say” “liberal are always wrong” or such bullshit reporting. But that is Fox for ya.

Large caches? No. Massive caches? No. Evidence of WMD's in Iraq? Yes.

You and the Left CLAIM they didn't exist AT ALL, yet they surely did...

See you just said you believe “yet they surely did” exist.

But even if I misread you, it is no better that you, as a fox viewer, still persist on believing there was real evidence of WMDs, ignorant of the cherry picking being reported at the time.
Still says it all. D’OH!

Campaign '04: How Did Dan Rather Get in This Fix?

By Amanda Ripley;Anna Macias Aguayo/Abilene; John F. Dickerson/Washington; Sean Gregory; Nathan Thornburgh/New York; Hilary Hylton/Austin; Cathy Booth Thomas/Dallas
Monday, Sep. 27, 2004

"If the White House had just raised an eyebrow--they didn't have to say they were forgeries--but if there was any hint that there was a question, that would have sent us back," says Howard. The morning the show aired, CBS staff members had shown copies of the memos to Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director. In response, according to a transcript of the interview, Bartlett tried to spin parts of the memos in Bush's favor and attributed the whole debate to partisan sniping. He did not, however, challenge the authenticity of the memos.

But the White House did not check the memos for invisible ink either. And why should it have? After all, the documents were allegedly written some 30 years ago by Bush's squadron commander in Texas, who has been dead for 20 years. There was no reason the Administration would have known if the documents were real.

Bartlett says that, having heard rumors about a big exclusive in the works, he had his staff call CBS at 5:45 p.m. the day before the Sept. 8 broadcast. "They said, 'Oh, yes, we were going to call,'" Bartlett says. By 7 p.m., CBS staff members had read Bartlett the memos over the phone. He told them he wouldn't comment on the air until he had physically seen them. The next day, he was given three hours to look them over. He showed them to the President, who said he had no recollection of those specific documents. "There was no way to check the authenticity," Bartlett says.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z1CNokhDXx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You're under the impression United States President, George W Bush should prove he doesn't beat his wife He does not.

I was there and my memory aint that shot.

In light of the facts, your claim is in dispute

There is, indeed, proof. Proof you refuse to see

Citations/links are embedded within the article at the link...

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results

By Noah Shachtman
October 23, 2010

But WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

In August 2004, for instance, American forces surreptitiously purchased what they believed to be containers of liquid sulfur mustard, a toxic “blister agent” used as a chemical weapon since World War I. The troops tested the liquid, and “reported two positive results for blister.” The chemical was then “triple-sealed and transported to a secure site” outside their base.

Three months later, in northern Iraq, U.S. scouts went to look in on a “chemical weapons” complex. “One of the bunkers has been tampered with,” they write. “The integrity of the seal [around the complex] appears intact, but it seems someone is interesting in trying to get into the bunkers.”

Meanwhile, the second battle of Fallujah was raging in Anbar province. In the southeastern corner of the city, American forces came across a “house with a chemical lab … substances found are similar to ones (in lesser quantities located a previous chemical lab.” The following day, there’s a call in another part of the city for explosive experts to dispose of a “chemical cache.”

Nearly three years later, American troops were still finding WMD in the region. An armored Buffalo vehicle unearthed a cache of artillery shells “that was covered by sacks and leaves under an Iraqi Community Watch checkpoint. “The 155mm rounds are filled with an unknown liquid, and several of which are leaking a black tar-like substance.” Initial tests were inconclusive. But later, “the rounds tested positive for mustard.”

In WikiLeaks’ massive trove of nearly 392,000 Iraq war logs are hundreds of references to chemical and biological weapons. Most of those are intelligence reports or initial suspicions of WMD that don’t pan out. In July 2004, for example, U.S. forces come across a Baghdad building with gas masks, gas filters, and containers with “unknown contents” inside. Later investigation revealed those contents to be vitamins.

But even late in the war, WMDs were still being unearthed. In the summer of 2008, according to one WikiLeaked report, American troops found at least 10 rounds that tested positive for chemical agents. “These rounds were most likely left over from the [Saddam]-era regime. Based on location, these rounds may be an AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq] cache. However, the rounds were all total disrepair and did not appear to have been moved for a long time.”
~snip

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10 ... g-results/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not surprising to me, but suprising to you and the rest of you

D'OH! Indeed, says it all...

,
WHAB