JohnRich 4 #1 October 26, 2004 From the Drudge Report, and talk radio: In 1992 it was the Iran Contra charges brought days before the election... In 2000 it was the DUI charges a few days before the vote... And Now... 60 MINS PLANNED BUSH MISSING EXPLOSIVES STORY FOR ELECTION EVE News of missing explosives in Iraq -- first reported in April 2003 -- was being resurrected for a 60 MINUTES election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crisis mode. Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES, said in a statement that "our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold..." Elizabeth Jensen at the LOS ANGELES TIMES details on Tuesday how CBS NEWS and 60 MINUTES lost the story [which repackaged previously reported information on a large cache of explosives missing in Iraq, first published and broadcast in 2003]. The story instead debuted in the NYT. The paper slugged the story about missing explosives from April 2003 as "exclusive." An NBC NEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq. According to NBC NEWS, the explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived. [VIDEO CLIP] It is not clear who exactly shopped an election eve repackaging of the missing explosives story. The LA TIMES claims: The source on the story first went to 60 MINUTES but also expressed interest in working with the NY TIMES... "The tip was received last Wednesday." CBSNEWS' plan to unleash the story just 24 hours before election day had one senior Bush official outraged. "Darn, I wanted to see the forged documents to show how this was somehow covered up," the Bush source, who asked not to be named, mocked, recalling last months CBS airing of fraudulent Bush national guard letters. Developing... Source: Drudge Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #2 October 26, 2004 I heard that today on talk radio. Extremely sad. CBS is the biggest excuse for a news source I have ever seen. At least you know what to expect when you tune in to them. It's like the Al Franken Factor but with Dan Rather. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #3 October 26, 2004 QuoteI heard that today on talk radio. Extremely sad. CBS is the biggest excuse for a news source I have ever seen. At least you know what to expect when you tune in to them. It's like the Al Franken Factor but with Dan Rather. Right there next to Fox. And you don't think Fox has some sort of "october surprise" lined up?_________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #4 October 26, 2004 Dems are getting desperate........and their mouthpiece CBS is all to happy to oblige......fair and impartial my ass!Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #5 October 26, 2004 QuoteAnd you don't think Fox has some sort of "october surprise" lined up? All I hear from the libs is, "Fox is biased, blah blah blah..." The funny thing is liberals have nothing to back it up with. I haven't seen anything yet that shows FOX as a biased network. However, we have seen tons of evidence out of CBS. Liberals are pissed because FOX is the only news source who is completely unbiased. It kills them there's one network who doesn't follow suit in the biased network arena. When a scandal hits FOX like it did CBS then you have a leg to stand on. Until then it's just liberal hot air. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #6 October 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd you don't think Fox has some sort of "october surprise" lined up? All I hear from the libs is, "Fox is biased, blah blah blah..." The funny thing is liberals have nothing to back it up with. I haven't seen anything yet that shows FOX as a biased network. However, we have seen tons of evidence out of CBS. Liberals are pissed because FOX is the only news source who is completely unbiased. It kills them there's one network who doesn't follow suit in the biased network arena. When a scandal hits FOX like it did CBS then you have a leg to stand on. Until then it's just liberal hot air. You should not believe anything you read in the press that relates to the election for the next couple of days. This includes CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, BBC ect. In the final days before the election, you cannot trust any network to tell you the whole truth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #7 October 26, 2004 A general comment here... Most people can clearly see that CBS has a political bone to pick. AT LEAST they can see that 60 minutes is about as anti-Bush as it gets for news media. Some people, on this board even, still accept what CBS pipes into their skulls and think Rather is a great journalist. What I DON'T get is how they can point a finger at FOX and even TRY to put them on the same level as what CBS is doing. I haven't seen ONE story on Fox that was as outrageously fabricated or re-animated specifically for election swaying purposes. Fox does side with the administration a lot, but they often have people of dissenting opinions come on and debate. ANYWAY, how can you honestly believe all the bullshit coming from places like CBS, then turn around and not believe anything that Fox runs with? The left, and Kerry, have a silly habit of attacking with headlines before learning what is going on behind them. When Fox throws out an "october surprise" it'll be just as silly, but I'll bet it isn't as blatantly false or out of date.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,446 #8 October 26, 2004 What data do you have to show that all other networks besides Fox are biased? What data do you have to show that Fox is completely unbiased? Your online assertion is not evidence. It's worth the zeroes that, along with ones, make it up. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #9 October 26, 2004 >I haven't seen anything yet that shows FOX as a biased network. What follows are reports on FOX's bias. Fair warning for conservatives to put on their blindfolds. ---------------------- Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism uses the inflammatory tactics of the Fox News Channel to demonstrate the conservative bias that's handed down by Fox's owner, media mogul Rupert Murdoch. The documentary gathers interviews from media watchdogs and former Fox employees (including a former anchor, Jon Du Pre, who describes his flailing efforts to create a celebration for Reagan's birthday when the one he was sent to cover never materialized), but their overwhelming condemnation of Fox's skewed news practices isn't half as effective as footage taken directly from Fox itself--an appalling montage of pundit Bill O'Reilly telling guests to shut up; repeated efforts to paint Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry as weak and waffling, while President Bush is captured in respectful, reverent images; and management memos dictating language, subject matter, and point of view. (Amazon.com review) ---------------------------------------- The Oh Really? Factor: Unspinning Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly "Caution: You’re about to enter a no-spin zone" is the warning with which Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly kicks off his no-holds-barred cable news program The O’Reilly Factor every night. O’Reilly is the reigning king of cable news, with a huge lead in the ratings, two best-selling books, and a nationally syndicated radio program. O’Reilly’s "no-spin" motto is clever marketing—but who’s keeping track of O’Reilly’s own spin? From his support for Bush’s tax cuts and the war with Iraq to his attacks on everything from National Public Radio to "welfare mothers," O’Reilly often contradicts himself and consistently concocts evidence to support his conservative talking points. His misguided opinions, stated as facts, are often simply wrong, such as his claim that the U.S. "gives far and away more tax money to foreign countries than anyone else . . . Nobody else even comes close to us" (per capita the U.S. is near the bottom of the list for developed countries). Other of his statements are deliberately inflammatory, such as his suggestion that we bomb Libyan civilians in the aftermath of September 11 ("Let them eat sand"). Weeks later O’Reilly denied the sentiment, though he has publicly stated that "If you’re not providing controversy and excitement, people won’t listen or watch." (Amazon.com review) ------------------------------------------------ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FinlanderSisu 0 #10 October 26, 2004 Funny how Republicans can be irked about bush's DUI but Have no problem doing then forgeting they did the same to clinton and smoking pot. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #11 October 26, 2004 Or Dems collective forgetfulness about Kerrys traitorous acts against his country in the early '70sMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,446 #12 October 26, 2004 What Kerry did was to expose what he thought was less-than-perfect behaviors in the military. Unless the military is, in fact, perfect, by testifying, TO THE US CONGRESS, he can hardly be said to have been aiding and abetting the enemy. I realize that Congress doesn't always have the US people in their best interests, but it's also not generally considered to be the enemy. Marching in lockstep with whatever you are told is not the definition of patriotic. Freedom of speech is still in the constitution. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #13 October 26, 2004 >about Kerrys traitorous acts . . . Do you consider the soldiers who blew the whistle on the Abu Ghraib tortures traitors or heroes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Trent 0 #14 October 26, 2004 Nice try Bill. I've never said that Fox wasn't biased. I think it definitely leans towards the administration, but I don't see them deliberately putting out false news stories or dredging up old stories at "convenient" times. It's funny... both articles you posted basically attack Bill O'Reilly, who anyone with a brain knows is a conservative. The Factor is an opinion based show, much like Larry King and Crossfire. Do you bitch about those shows, or does common sense tell you that they're opinion shows and everyone knows it? Come on... you think Fox is all lies because of the O'Reilly Factor... while you choose to listen (more often) to the "unbiased" CBS, NYT, and LAT reports? Get real, man.Oh, hello again! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #15 October 26, 2004 >but I don't see them deliberately putting out false news stories From 2003 alone: March 14: On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood damage. March 19: Fox anchor Shepard Smith reports that Iraqis are planning to detonate large stores of napalm buried deep below the earth to scorch coalition forces. March 23: The network begins 2 days of unequivocal assertions that a 100-acre facility discovered by coalition forces at An Najaf is a chemical weapons plant. March 28: Repeated assertions by Fox News anchors of a red ring around Baghdad in which Republican Guard forces were planning to use chemical weapons on coalition forces. A Fox "Breaking News" flash reports that Iraqi soldiers were seen by coalition forces moving 55-gallon drums almost certainly containing chemical agents. April 9: Iraqis around coalition troops toppling the Saddam statue in Baghdad is shown. The perspective is always in close, and shows a handful of people. It's constantly asserted that there's a huge crowd. April 10: Fox "Breaking News" report of weapons-grade plutonium found at Al Tuwaitha. April 10 (3 p.m. EDT: Reporter Rick Leventhal) Fox "Breaking News" report: A mobile bioweapons lab is found. April 13: Fox Graphic: "Bush: Syria Harboring Chemical Weapons." April 15: Fox analyst Mansoor Ijaz claims that the top 55 Iraqi leaders (along with the whole stash of chemical and biological WMDs they have taken with them) are now living in Latakia, Syria. April 22: Lt. Colonel Robert Maginnis states on The O'Reilly Factor that the probability of finding WMDs is a 10 out of 10. May 8: Fox News Military Analyst Major General Paul Vallely states on The O’Reilly Factor that "Middle East agents" have told him that Iraq’s WMDs along with 17 mobile weapons labs (1 of which was captured around May 2) are now buried in the Bakaa Valley in Syria 30 meters underground. May 22 (5:54 a.m. CDT): Richard King, a military doctor, appears on Fox and Friends with promises by the show's hosts that he will verify that the Jessica Lynch rescue wasn't staged. King doesn't prove anything. -------------------------- From USA Today: Posted 10/2/2004 9:08 AM Fox News pulls reporter's item with fake Kerry quotes WASHINGTON (AP) — Fox News apologized Friday for posting phony quotes from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry on its Web site. Carl Cameron, a Fox reporter who covers the Kerry campaign, wrote an item that looked like a news story with made-up Kerry quotes, said Paul Schur, a Fox spokesman. The item was not intended to be posted on the site. ---------------------------- >both articles you posted basically attack Bill O'Reilly The first article (a video, actually) is about FOX News, of which O'Reilly is just one part. >while you choose to listen (more often) to the "unbiased" CBS, NYT, and > LAT reports? I don't listen to CBS, nor do I read the NYT. I get most of the news I hear from NPR, and get most of what I read from Yahoo (which is fairly unbiased in that they include news from just about every news organization, from Al-Jazeera to the BBC and from the Village Voice to FOX News.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #16 October 26, 2004 QuoteWhat Kerry did was to expose what he thought was less-than-perfect behaviors in the military. What about his meetings with the enemy in France? I think that by definition those meetings make him a traitor. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #17 October 26, 2004 >What about his meetings with the enemy in France? People who meet with our enemies are traitors? See below. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #18 October 26, 2004 I guess "private" meetings with the North Vietnamese while we were at war with them doesnt count as treason then?Interesting...........Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #19 October 26, 2004 Quote>What about his meetings with the enemy in France? People who meet with our enemies are traitors? See below. People who meet with the enemy without government sanction are traitors or guilty of treason (apologies, I can't remember which). - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #20 October 26, 2004 As a matter of fact, in Kerry's case, yes. http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000953----000-.html mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #21 October 26, 2004 >People who meet with the enemy without government sanction are traitors or guilty of treason . . . Uh huh. That has about as much credence as the claim that George Bush is a criminal for his cocaine usage. Hey, someone said he did, right? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #22 October 26, 2004 QuoteAs a matter of fact, in Kerry's case, yes. http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000953----000-.html Very good, now give us the details of Kerry's trial and conviction. It is well documented (links available) that President Nixon hated Kerry. So if there was actually a case to made against Kerry, why didn't Nixon have his Atty. Gen. John Mitchell have Kerry indicted and tried? Could it be that there wasn't actually a case to be made?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #23 October 26, 2004 www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2004/n10262004_2004102606.html Is it still a lie if the DoD posts it?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChasingBlueSky 0 #24 October 26, 2004 QuoteQuoteAnd you don't think Fox has some sort of "october surprise" lined up? All I hear from the libs is, "Fox is biased, blah blah blah..." The funny thing is liberals have nothing to back it up with. I haven't seen anything yet that shows FOX as a biased network. However, we have seen tons of evidence out of CBS. Liberals are pissed because FOX is the only news source who is completely unbiased. It kills them there's one network who doesn't follow suit in the biased network arena. When a scandal hits FOX like it did CBS then you have a leg to stand on. Until then it's just liberal hot air. And CBS represents all media??? CNN has recently been accused of only showing polls that favor Bush. ALL media is biased, wanna know why? Because they are publicly owned companies that are trying to GENERATE an audience!!! This includes the news outlets - including 24 hour news channels!!! NEWS=Business! Thus, it cannot be fair and balanced no matter what side of the fence you sit on._________________________________________ you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me.... I WILL fly again..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #25 October 26, 2004 Touche! No trial, no conviction, no traitor. gotcha! John Wilkes Booth was not a murderer. Lee Harvey Oswald was not an assassin either. Hitler, yep, innocent as well. Bonnie and Clyde were upstanding, too. Even Capone was simply a tax evader. I'd say that Kerry wasn't touched at the time because it would have opened pandora's box, and Nixon had his hands full. Nonetheless, Kerry, by his own admission, met with the two communist delegations from Vietnam in 1970. It is a clear violation of U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953, whether or not it was prosecuted. QuoteKerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question and answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped "immediately and unilaterally." Then Kerry added, "I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PVR)." oh well... mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
