The Bush lied about WMD argument having "negligible effect" per new Post/ABC poll

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: glenn1

I wonder how they got that impression *cough* FOXNews *cough*.

Was that something that Fox reported erroneously in the heat of battle, an implied possibility that the network didn't discourage, or simply a jab at Fox because of the right-leaning tendencies of the network? I could see how any of the three would be possible, after all, some news outlets were repeating stories in the confusion of the 9-11 tradgedy that the Supreme Court building was under attack, etc. and such misreports aren't the province of any particular network.

Don't take this that i'm supporting Fox, but i'm just trying to find out if Fox did or did not actually report chemical attacks in error or put such statements into a context to lead people to conclude they did. There's a big difference between those two actions.

Curiously, no responses to your rational post.

Curiously, you missed my statement that Fox never reported WMD being used in Iraq against US forces.....

The bashers cant acknowledge that fact otherwise their contention that Fox's direct influence on that question in the poll holds no water.....

 

[SuperTool]

If Vietnam went well, nobody would care about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution either.
If we keep losing soldiers in Iraq, people will ask the question, why are we there.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If Vietnam went well, nobody would care about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution either.
If we keep losing soldiers in Iraq, people will ask the question, why are we there.

What does that have to do with known unaccounted for WMD?

We left 10,000+ dead on the beach at Normandy for others freedom, are the people of Iraq not worth a few hundred more?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: SuperTool
If Vietnam went well, nobody would care about the Gulf of Tonkin resolution either.
If we keep losing soldiers in Iraq, people will ask the question, why are we there.

What does that have to do with known unaccounted for WMD?

We left 10,000+ dead on the beach at Normandy for others freedom, are the people of Iraq not worth a few hundred more?

Did FDR say we were going into Europe for the WMD? If there are reasons to go to Iraq aside from WMD, then Bush should have presented us those reasons, and not these WMD lies.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: glenn1

I wonder how they got that impression *cough* FOXNews *cough*.

Was that something that Fox reported erroneously in the heat of battle, an implied possibility that the network didn't discourage, or simply a jab at Fox because of the right-leaning tendencies of the network? I could see how any of the three would be possible, after all, some news outlets were repeating stories in the confusion of the 9-11 tradgedy that the Supreme Court building was under attack, etc. and such misreports aren't the province of any particular network.

Don't take this that i'm supporting Fox, but i'm just trying to find out if Fox did or did not actually report chemical attacks in error or put such statements into a context to lead people to conclude they did. There's a big difference between those two actions.

Curiously, no responses to your rational post.

Curiously, you missed my statement that Fox never reported WMD being used in Iraq against US forces.....

The bashers cant acknowledge that fact otherwise their contention that Fox's direct influence on that question in the poll holds no water.....

I don't get Faux News Channel Only MSNBC, which is trying to outFaux Faux News.

 

[Alistar7]

The genocide of the Nazi regime was a WMD. Bush presented many reasons including the freedom of the people of Iraq in his address to the nation just before the war, forgetting that?

What "lies" are you talking about? I did not realize there was any evidence Bush lied about anything....

Let's see what the UN says about Iraq instead of Bush..


Thirteenth quarterly report of the Executive Chairman of the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission in accordance with paragraph 12 of Security Council resolution 1284 (1999)
30 May 2003United Nations Security Council

13. Again, with respect to anthrax, the Commission, as it reported, had strong
indications ? but not conclusive evidence ? that all the quantities produced had
not been destroyed, and that hence even today such quantities could remain.

118. During an inspection on 7 January 2003 of the Al Mamoun site, UNMOVIC
inspectors observed two large propellant casting chambers. Iraq declared that those
casting chambers had originally been acquired for the Badr 2000 project. That was a
proscribed project, and although UNSCOM had supervised the destruction of the
two casting chambers in 1991 Iraq had managed to refurbish them for use in their
current solid propellant missile projects.

"UNSCOM discovered a document at Iraqi Air Force headquarters in July 1998 showing that Iraq overstated by at least 6,000 the number of chemical bombs it told the UN it had used during the Iran-Iraq War?bombs that remain are unaccounted for.

Iraq has not accounted for 15,000 artillery rockets that in the past were its preferred means for delivering nerve agents, nor has it accounted for about 550 artillery shells filled with mustard agent. "

Address that please, don't just dodge it, where are they then? This is why the UN wanted to keep inspecting, to find these among others and oversee their destruction. those 6,000 overstated WMD show you how much you could trust Saddam to willingly comply.


I would like proof that the claims Bush used as found in the CIA's report from oct. 2002 differ greatly from UN inspections reports or the general opinions of the international communities various intelligence agencies. I would also like to point out that only yesterday Blix admitted every western intel agency outside of the US also believed Saddam still had WMD so good luck.....

my cable company just started offering Fox news about 2 weeks ago. I don't watch the commentary shows or any of the other talking head shows, but find their news coverage is far more comprehensive than CNN, and they always have far more on Iraq than anyone else. I have not found anything reported on there proven to be false, and they have scooped many other sources, but I attributed that to a friendly admin. official who understands they are "their" network.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Caddy, you have never heard left wing media in your life if that's what you think is left.

well its not socialist worker but the left isn't just hard core extremists