I don't blame the GOP for voting down the U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act.
I blame the TeaPArty. They are corrupted by foreign funds and media (like australian owned foxNews). I think once they are voted out the GOP will regain credibility.
Until then, there votes are stealing the American tax-payer money to create oppurtunity in india and phillipines.
In essence, they want the US to use Federal funds to reduce it's own GNP. It only makes sense to a foreigners who h8 USA.
GOP has voted that outsourcing in the private sector, justifies US tax-payer dollars going to workers overseas. No corporation wants to pay their workers, but leaching off the American tax-payer is not the answer. I understand why foreigners and foreign companies (like australian owned FoxNews) would approve of ripping off the American tax-payer, but why should educated news media?
It's not biased to love ur country and it's citizens.
To understand outsourcing you must understand why. Regulations and taxation. This isn't due to the GOP, but due to big government Democrats. Blaming the GOP is pure propaganda and you are a victim to it. Those blaming the GOP are the people responsible, and Democrats are masters at the art of creating the problem and then blaming their opponents.
"regulations". GOP's inability to specify is another concern.
By deregulation do they mean expedite the process of bringing new drugs to the market (good), or creating another ENRON that will bleed another state dry (bad)?
If they can't state their case in front of their people, they are probably wrong.
Okay, she has liberal bias, what of it? Try asking people from conservative sources if they have conseervative bias. All media is biased, liberal, conservaative, all of it. Fox is not more or less biased than anything else
Who frickens cares fox...she was interviewed about her personal beliefs...she wasnt on fox and friends or the mourning news. She was being herself. The chains were off. Fox and pretty much all MSM basically say the same things for whichever side they represent, only they do during so called "news" shows.
And mulhollanddose...you think Fox is fair and balanced?? Watch liberalviewer's channel sometime.
Theres a reason why Fox viewers are the least informed and or most misinformed....
Ya, we want Fox singing in perfect harmony with the Democrat media. How terrible it is for Fox to tell a story not in lockstep with the leftists...What idiocy you parrot...You leftists hate free speech. If you didn't you would celebrate Fox. They don't suck Democrat dick, and you liberals hate that.
@mulhollanddose First off: I'm a libertarian, not a liberal. I fucking hate liberals, admittedly as much as I hate blind and subservient neocons. Second, your entire post was one giant strawman argument. Have you not seen Fox's entire primetime lineup? Do you hear the amount of commentary this "reporter" is making? It's one neocon after another, and YOU'RE the indoctrinated one walking in lockstep if you refuse to admit that obvious fact.
LOL how does this show liberal bias? its just men talking shit on her
and im pretty sure they dont claim to be fair and balanced like fox does(idk, i dont watch that station). i think it is insane to consider fox balanced news though. i dont have a problem with them having a conservative bias, as long as they are not claiming to be right in the middle while doing it.
ever wonder why every anchor uses the same word of the day? because they are told what to say!
This video shows Katie Couric admitting her bias. She isn't billed as a commentator, yet she injects her opinion on what and how she covers the news. She skews it dishonestly.Some people buy this shit, but less and less. This is why Fox whips the major networks ass...Fox may be biased, but compared to ABC, seeBS, NBC and CNN they look like models of objectivity...Fox has balanced debate, whereas the rest have a bunch of leftists just telling you what to think.
@mulhollanddose higher ratings does not equal truth. Fox is entertainment. i dont watch CBS, but i dont think they claim to be fair and balanced like Fox does. Fox anchors say things that make people think one way ALL THE TIME. they comment on the subject, saying they are for or against it. and they also show christians in a positive light, while muslims in a negative light.
i rewatched the video and all i see is katie saying she is against the war. whats the problem?
Please. The DNC and the media coordinate regularly their talking points. The establishment (non Fox) media gets the DNC talking points and that becomes echoed throughout the media...What is wrong with you leftists that you hate diversity of thought so much? Ya'll claim to be all about diversity, but it is clearly all about skin color and sexual perversity, but any diversity of thought becomes demonized, ridiculed and attacked...It reminds me a lot of Adolph Hitler.
the reason Fox is attacked is because it lies and tells the sheep that white christians are good and muslims are terrorists. how come everyone suddenly thought obama was a socialist kenyan? FOX. they are a conservative station. there is nothing wrong with that, UNLESS you claim to be fair and balanced. they are not, so they get called out for it.
@mulhollanddose you really think fox hosts dont get their message of the day from murdoch? how come they all of a sudden all use the same word or phrase?
why do you think leftists hate diversity of thought? and why are you mentioning skin color and sexual perversity?
Murdoch is out to make a buck. The truth sells and so Murdoch offers it. Watch Fox, they have ample debate where they have equal representation. They have Democrats like Chris Wallace and Shepherd Smith. They have liberals on regularly to discuss issues...They are unique for these reasons. No other channel comes close to that type of objective news analysis.
the "lefty biased" was created by escapist whom wish to poison the well, for everyone who disagrees with them. Majority of American's are liberal, we just don't care about them because they don't vote.
which is more likely:
-there's a global liberal conspiracy infecting all major networks except FoxNews.
-Or some wealthy foreigner is using his news group to siphon american funds.
Ya, it is obvious that Fox employs more Democrats, and has more Democrats on to debate, than any other liberal news station has Republicans on. That is a fact...That is fair and balanced.
I watch them all. It is clear as the driven snow. Fox's Sunday show has Chris Wallace (a liberal hosting). No other network has had a conservative at the top of their ticket EVER. Rachel Maddow NEVER has Republicans on. Chris Matthews has an occasional Republican on, buried by about ten liberals. Fox has Greta (a liberal), Whorealdo Riviera (a liberal), Shepherd Smith (a liberal), and every show has a strong Democrat spewing the Democrat talking points.
@mulhollanddose i would hardly call chris wallace a liberal. i think jeraldo revera is a libertarian. greta is a scientologist(nuts?), and her husband worked for palin. i would not call these people 'strong democrats'.
@daoriginalaidaman well i mean they did have alan colmes, but they probably got tired of his slanderous liberal fucking nonsense and his deathly appearance.
How come last election NBC had Maddow and Olberman doing their election night coverage? You didn't see Fox using Hannity or Beck or O'Reilly...Fox is unique in that their head anchor is a Democrat, and they employ several Democrats at high levels. The rest of the media doesn't even consider hiring Republicans at high places within their machines.
Think about it most of the media staff have liberal arts degrees from a liberal arts university, taught by liberal professors (Liberal arts professor; losers who couldn't get a real job in his or her field, so they teach the same crap they themselves couldn't get a job for). Liberal media bias= hell ya. Notice when you disagree with liberals your either a racist, Uncle Tom or an idiot.
Don't know what the big deal is with network anchors being non objective. They are all well known progressives which is how they get hired in the first place. That's why FOX gets attacked by most of the media. Because they are not just mouthpieces for the leftist agenda. They stand alone in a sea of red and don't just cater to the leftist coastal city's.
2/2 I want to see you talk back the way Clair Huxtable did, and get slapped across the face consistent with [4:34] of the Qu’ran. I also want Bill’s friends to come over and play some Poker, and you disagree with one of Bill’s friends, and Bill will say, “He’s right, his word is worth twice yours, woman!” consistent with [4.11]. That Bill Cosby would be such a card! Enlightenment could not be funnier.
Katie Couric is part of liberal bias. She trumped any Palin gaffe with her Muslim Cosby Show idea.
1/2
Katie, only if you played the Muslim wife version of Clair Huxtable. I want to see you wear a burka during the entire series, because that’s what respectful muslim women do. I want to see lots of scenes where you don’t want sex, and your “Bill Cosby” plows his fields essentially raping you consistent with [2. 223] of the Qu’ran. Damn that’s just slap-stick comedy right there!
This broad is an idiot,,not for AMERICA since her husband died..I remember in the mid too late 70's...how old is she ..she would carry day's old sandwich;es in her purse and tell the audience and laugh about it..my Mom thought she was a silly twit..btw HOW did you name your offspring ..how did you come up w/ these names for your offspring..HAGHA..how did you come up w/ thoose NAMES of your offspring couric....u- b a fool..go on woman..what goes around ..comes around....HAHAHA
NOOOOOO really? Katie COURIC is NOT a fair and professional "journalist"? HUGE surprise! NOT! But she is kissing the right asses, so she does not PAY for her low life ways..she gets prizes for them! She was smart to get such a lucrative deal when she went to evening news...they cant afford to buy her out and still pay a REAL journalist. She's just a cheap pundit, and a bad one at that.
Couric is grossly biased to the left. If you watch all of her interviews of important political figures especially those running for Pres. you will see a stark difference in how she handles Dems vs. Repubs. She gushes and smiles at the dems and really enjoys kissing fanny. Then she paints a fake stern face to throw them a softball that she probablly let them hold before the interview. She can hardly maintain her stern face cause her eyes are gushing love.With Repubs its grouchy/rude hardball atw
And somehow this queen of liberal P.C. fluff news wins all these major news awards - guess the people giving the awards have the same credibility as the news outlets they're awarding - zero!
@criticalgal Agreed Katie Couric is so liberal, I have to grind my teeth when I watched her on the morning show once in awhile. Journalist? More like liberal spokesman!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wow..fox news talking and criticising others for bias? Fox noise talking about other news having a bias!? FARCE NEWS TALKING ABOUT HOW ITS BAD TO HAVE A BIAS!? WOW.
Fox news is so biased it doesn't see its own bias and any criticism to anything near the right is a liberal bias...wow.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
There is no evidence here of liberal bias, how the hell you come up with that!? She answered questions in an interview and obvious things like YES the media were misled and did misleading for everything the right-wing was gushing over which was war and who cares what for...sickos.
Thank god for FOX!? For what pointing and laughing at! They are a joke of an organization. Blatant servants of the Repubs and engage in countless lies to throw red meat to the braindead they rely on.
I am sorry, but isn't Katie a whore for seeBS? Weren't they the news organization that used forged and falsified documents to undermine Bush in 2004 to fool idiots into hating Bush?...And you criticize Fox News?...You are a fucking moron.
Bush undermined Bush and already had signifigant numbers hating him, a majority of the public that just kept growing and rightfully so. Not for some bs falsified documents.
Yes I will criticize FOX news because they are garbage. They are a lie factory. I have never seen so much blatant BS pumped out into the media before in all my years and uneducated clowns like your self actually buy it. How pathetic is that!
And btw, I don't think the number is nearly that high. Conservatives have, obviously, gotten a much bigger share of the media, esp. talk radio. It's closer to 70 or 80%, at best. 98%?? Don't make me laugh. Who told you that silly statistic?
The sad thing, though, is that you assume there's some sinister agenda. But I think the reality is just that they unconsciously or subconsciously report liberal and think that 'being liberal' means being objective.
Conservatives control a very small amount of the media. Conservative publications have a very small audience. Talk radio is just radio, and AM to make it even smaller...Then there is Fox News, and only their cable division...All mainstream news, Hollywood and the music industry pumps out liberal propaganda and they nearly monopolize the media market...Maybe not 98%, but a good 90% of the media is controlled by liberals.
@mulhollanddose wow dude, go outside and stop listening to the voices coming through your AM radio. the conservative media is every bit as large as the "liberal" one, and btw, "liberal media" is the last resort of people who don't have facts on their side.
and on another note, your video doesnt support your claim at all. funny, a conservative completely bypassing the truth. whoduhthunk
@mulhollanddose wow dude, go outside and stop listening to the voices coming through your AM radio. the conservative media is every bit as large as the "liberal" one, and btw, "liberal media" is the last resort of people who don't have facts on their side.
and on another note, your video doesnt support your claim at all. funny, a conservative completely bypassing the truth. whoduhthunk
GOP says outsourcing in the private sector, justifies US tax-payer dollars going to workers overseas. No corporation wants to pay their workers, but leaching off the American tax-payer is not the answer. Again i understand why foreigners and foreign companies (like australian owned FoxNews) would approve of ripping off the American tax-payer, but why should educated news media?
It's not bias to love America.
Australian owned FoxNews just spends time routing against the USdolla
Katie Couric should be a journalist when she's at her news desk or doing an interview on tv, but other than that, she's free to be herself. If she's not representing CBS at some point in time, why should she have to be objective and not express herself? Who ever said journalists have to be ALWAYS objective no matter what? They can't have opinions and views on their free time? There's no contract saying that, either. So get off your high horse.
This particular incident in no way "demonstrates" bias. Just because she's a reporter AT HER JOB, she can't have her own opinions on her free time? She was being INTERVIEWED! She wasn't the one doing the interview. My god, you people who bitch about bias are idiots.
As if Fox is ANY better. Please. All the media today sucks. I don't see both sides in this debate. They only invited a CONSERVATIVE guest to talk about it, perhaps one of the dumbest ones, too (Brent BOZO).
Where was the liberal guest to counteract Bozo on this clip? I don't see him! So much for "presenting both sides" at Fox. And don't try to make it seem like Colmes is a good liberal commentator. He sucks at it. He's a weakling. I'd rather a monkey do his job on Hannity and Colmes.
If you think that Katie Couric doesn't manipulate the news to suit her leftist agenda, you are a fool. When it is 98% liberals controlling content, and they have an agenda (like electing Obama), they are capable of any and every type of treachery to achieve their ends...Katie knew Democrats made the same case Bush did in the run up to the war, but she chose to omit that...This makes her a liar.
I never said there isn't a liberal bias, but in this particular interview, you savage her for speaking her mind on her own time. She's not doing her anchor work during the interview, so who cares what she said. It's like when you guys bitched about Jim Lehrer having contributed to Democratic campaigns and being a debate moderator. I mean, is a person who moderates or is a journalist supposed to NEVER have their own opinions or vote for the person tehy think is right?
I highly doubt that the editors and managers of the mainstream media sit down every morning and say, "How can we manipulate the news to help liberals/Democrats and liberal causes?" Bias is usually something that's more subconscious.
And plus, most of these big-media outlets are in liberal cities! So naturally, a lot of the people working there will be liberal. And those w/ liberal views will tend to see 'liberal' reporting as better than conservative, and vice versa. They'll hire libs.
The bias of FOX grttin true dirt on BO's "alma Mater, and most fervent supporters-ACORN, while the other media only reluctantly started minimal coverage for realization they looked bad by "dereliction of duty".
Attempting to declare that Fox doesn't invite opposing viewpoints is like attempting to declare sailing is not a watersport...The ignorance is baffling.
Chomsky is a neo-communist America hater. The guy wouldn't last a round in an honest debate. Chomsky filibusters and bloviates endlessly. It is next to impossible to get an honest two-way dialogue with the POS.
Where's all the talk from the media about how Obama should pull the media out from Iraq? Hmmm.... After all those years bashing Bush, how come the media has fallen silent?
Obama and the Dems wanted us to withdraw and declare defeat. You are mistaken, they were not the only ones who wanted us to withdraw and declare defeat, the terrorists did to...The terrorists and the Dems didn't get their way.
Insurgents aren't terrorists? So how do you explain them being the single largest mass murderers in Iraq???...I can't even count the amount of innocent women and children killed by insurgent bombs...While Bush was trying to kill these scumbags, Democrats were trying to kill the chances of Bush stopping them...The Democrats wanted to hand Iraq over to the terrorist insurgents.
While you are at it, why don't you ask when Clinton is gonna make good on his promise to pull us out of Kosovo???...Oh ya, double standard...What happened to the good old days when Bush was in office and the anti-war protests were raging? Oh ya, a Democrat is in office...The anti-war folks musta got the memo that now a Democrat is in office they gotta STFU.
That's a pretty stupid argument to make because then you should be saying "when are we going to pull out of Germany with the military bases we put in in WWII." Plus it's not like Obama campaigned to bring back all US troops just Iraq forces.
This isn't even taking into account that the NATO bombings where relatively tame and strategically sound compared with billions given to Saddam in hopes that he does things well.
It displays the rank hypocrisy and two-facedness of the Democrat party and his liberal special interest groups. Even the anti-war protestors have STFU because their ultra-radical liberal brand of Democrat is in office...Clinton promised to pull us out of a war of choice in Kosovo, a war that supported Islamic terrorists...Yet you never heard Democrats one bit critical...If Gore handled Iraq exactly the same they would be calling him a hero.
The difference between Kosovo and Iraq is that in Kosovo we only demilitarized them (targeted military or strategic areas) while in Iraq we were forced to do nation building. One was a moderate success with few (relatively) casualties and one was a huge disaster.
Also in case you've been ignoring politics for the past 30 years we haven't had very many liberal dems in office period, and it's a complete joke to call the guy who signed NAFTA "liberal".
Kosovo was more about distracting America from Clinton's massive criminality and his sexual harassment. We had ABSOLUTELY no justifiable reason being there. Muslims invaded and harassed Serbians and Serbians responded. The Clinton Administration justified air bombing Serbian civilian targets killing well over 1,000 people based on a proven lie. He claimed Milosevich was committing genocide which never happened...After this true war crime was committed we were promised to leave by 1998.
The 1000+ casualties and justification is still no ware near as bad as the tens of thousands and lack of WMDs in Iraq.
The point is yes Kosovo was unwarranted but to say it's a double standard to not criticize Clinton for Kosovo and to criticize Bush is silly because of the difference of sheer scope and outcome of the two wars.
Speaking of silly, claiming Iraq was a quagmire and incompetently waged is a bit silly too. Bush's waging of war in Iraq make FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson look like war-mongering blood-thirsty fools.
The only reason we won WWII is because we had the media, Hollywood and the taxpayers paying for pro-war propaganda. Of course the fact that the Democrat party had a soft spot for Joseph Stalin helped.
You are right, LBJ and JFK didn't wage 2 wars simultaneously...hell, they couldn't even manage one without losing 58,000 American lives and then having their own party making success impossible...They did the same thing to Korea.
Democrats have no biz criticizing Bush's handling of war.
Iraq was anything but a huge disaster. The claim that it was a huge disaster was offered by Democrat politicians that wanted people to believe that it was a huge disaster...Apparently the Democrats memory stops when it becomes politically expedient to forget the Democrats wars and the incompetent bloodbaths that they subjected Americans and the world to...Do yourself a favor and compare Iraq to Germany, Japan, Korea or Vietnam...Probably a better idea to go bury your head in the sand.
Actually, more than half of them did. Saddam butchered the Shi'ites, gassed the Kurds, invaded Iran, annexed Kuwait, and launched missiles at Israel. We punished him and democratized a Middle Eastern nation. Do you like democracy? Or would you rather support a dictator?
Big gvt., big gvt... no wonder why you voted for Obama.
No we didn't, jackass. We may have authorized the sale by our private enterprise of certain chemicals that could be used for nefarious purposes, but with absolutely no expectation of nefarious usage. It really is irrelevant anyway. The only thing even remotely deadly that we allowed to be traded were helicopters.
I don't even see why you bring it up. If people like you and the backstabbing liberals had their way, Saddam would still have rape rooms, torture chambers, children's prisons, etc.
Uuuum like no like seriously I'm not like stupid or like ignorant.
There are no records that the US gave Saddam anthrax. That, my friend, you seem to have fabricated. We also didn't ask that he gas the Kurds, or do any of the other things that I previously listed. If you want to surrender to tyranny, please feel free to do so, but not in my name. You're going to have to give up a lot of your own liberties when you surrender to these people. Republicans aren't nearly as right wing as they are.
"Second Staff Report on U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq and The Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the War"
Also the UN weapons inspector David Kelly verified this soooo
Actually, during Obama's campaign, he stated he would bring the troops home, "the Friday that he got elected". Now, they set up a date to "discuss" bringing "some" troops home nearly 2 years after his first day in office. Yikes, then he turned around and added 30k troops to Afghanistan. So much for your anti-war President. Wake up people. Stop getting conned.
you stupid ass pussy librial seem to forget bill clinton was bombing the hell out of IRAQ under resolution 687. and WMD was not the only reason to invade IRAQ called ties to terrorists well documented. Clinton should have grown a pair of balls and take out bin laden when he could have and Saddam ,
Couric is pushing forward this theory that it was the Bush Administration that misled us into war...It is a lie and Couric knows it...It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my political leanings to come to this conclusion.
If Couric was honest she would objectively analyze the Democrat party and the fact that they made the exact same case Bush did.
i hope u know that this is a fox video talking smack, this video is biased
you prove no point when u have to use fox news as support, they were going to try to smear her anyways because she totally screwed palin over with her questions
Fox is far and away more trustworthy than the liberal propaganda machine Katie works for. She works in establishment media that is devoted to pushing forward Democrat party-line propaganda...Couric knows full well that the Democrat media and the Democrat party both made the same case for war Bush did...In short, Katie and the Democrat party have pushed forward a stinking filthy lie and she knows it.
Each side thinks the other side is all wrong, spinning everything their way, be it right or left. There is no such thing as impartial media. Consider the source, whether it's Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olberman, or even Jon Stewart. The fact that they spend so much time cutting each other down says more than what any of them actually say.
Given that every side is spinning their way does not mean they are equally wrong. O'Reilly doesn't devote a fraction of his time cutting the leftists down (Olberman, Stewart, etc).
I agree with you on that one. It seems all Olbermann does is point out negative things about republicans, conservatives, etc. and doesn't spend time speaking out in support of democrats, liberals.
When George Washington retired from public life, one of his warnings to the country was to stay away from a two party political system. America needs a congress with more political parties without a majority. Also, Benjamin Franklin was in favor of an executive branch with 3 members instead of 1.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!!? Bill O'Reilly spends all of his time trying to make democrats look bad and make republicans look good. there is no other "news" show out there where the host regularly yells at the guests and tells them to shut up simply because they disagree with him. Fox news is constantly misleading people and misrepresenting facts. Any bias Katie Couric has is NOTHING compared to Bill O'reilly's bias.
I find it suspicious that you see Fox as so biased, but the other media doesn't seem to bother you much. If you were a fair-minded person Fox wouldn't bother you at all because they would be perceived as a necessary solution to the mountain of massively biased leftist media. Fox cable news is a very small franchise in the media....The only reason they seem biased to your warp little mind is because you are a brainwashed drone. They are more objective and fair than anybody else.
all media bothers me. but what bothers me the most is people taking sides with any media station. how is fox a solution? the answer to bias is not more bias. you call me a brainwashed drone but if you seriously get your news from fox that is exactly what you are. almost nothing bill o'reilly says is based on fact. hes just some crabby old fuck trying to force his views down everyone's throats. i love to hear other's opinions, but stating opinions and calling it "news" is absurd.
You're a real hyper-partisan, which I believe has distorted your view of what is real and what isn't. Thinking Saddam had WMD, that conservative bias is okay but liberal bias is evil and wrong, and any other such nonsense. It's like you void out anything negative concerning Republican politics, as if to mirror Sean Hannity, god forbid we have any more of those kinds of people.
Grammer: "Sean Hannity, god forbid we have any more of those kinds of people."
Ya, wouldn't want any more people questioning the establishment. We have way too many people contradicting the leftists as it is...What is with you neo-fascist liberals and your contempt for free speech? Sean Hannity is about one of the only honest voices out there, and his voice is very limited on cable TV and talk-radio.
Katie and her fellow travelers in the establishment media were all outlining connections to terrorists long before Bush got in office...They buried this fact by not reporting on it. Their new talking points (Saddam had no connections to Al Qaeda) disallowed objective reporting, as they would look like hypocrites and liars.
Absence of evidence is simply the explanation that omission is another form of propaganda. Given Couric and her liberal network were aware that the Clinton Administration admitted connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and then they ignored to highlight that, is all the evidence a thinking person needs...I am in no way accusing you of being a thinking person.
To claim that Couric didn't know that Saddam had a direct relationship with several terrorist groups is entirely unbelievable. The fact that she omitted that part of her coverage as the Democrats made multiple claims that Saddam had no connections, makes her a part of the leftist propaganda machine.
No proof is proof. If she did not know, then she is ignorant. If she did know (which she did), then she is a lying rat (this is the most probable possibility).
The question is, why didn't you know it? Is it because the Democrats and their media whores decided it didn't fit in with the bullshit they were selling the American public the last 8 years???...It would be really hard to claim Bush lied unless you put the truth down the Orwellian memory-hole.
Now go look up the 1998 indictment of "Usama Bin Laden" by the Clinton Administration...You will find in that document the connection made, the very connection that many media outlets made before Bush.
I don't believe it because no one has proven to me a connection with Saddam Hussein and al qaeda. No credible news organization, not even FNC, touts such a thing. I suppose next you're going to tell me we've already found WMDs in Iraq.
Clinton issued a toothless indictment of Osama in 1998. In that indictment the case is clearly made that Saddam and Al Qaeda worked to develop WMD. During the Clinton years there were many connections made by the media that linked Saddam to terrorist groups...They dropped that narrative down the memory-hole as it no longer fit into their anti-Bush propaganda.
Saddam had WMD and he had connections to Al Qaeda...I know you look like a total jackass admitting it, so you refuse...We found WMD, including 500 tons of yellow-cake, but the media hada narrative and they didn't want anything that undermined it.
Then why did Saddam have terrorist training camps in Iraq? Why was Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal welcomed in Iraq? Why was Saddam funding Palistinian suicide bombing terrorists?
Saddam harbored, funded and trained terrorists, and he had a working relationship with Al Qaeda.
Be warned, you won't find the stories on your favorite brainwashing channels. You will find the connections in old articles by your favorite liberal propaganda machines, but you won't find recent stories as they don't fit in with the hate-Bush propaganda.
The first link that came from what you told me to google was a Weekly Standard article, one dating back to 2003, not to mention the WS is a conservative publication. The second link is a Washington Post article saying that the allegation of Saddam-AQ connection is dismissed, and the third is a wikipedia article.
Right. One is a conservative publication (the one that can be trusted...The second is an ultra-liberal propaganda rag...The third is an ultra-liberal propaganda machine...The conservative publication has citations from liberal publications and the Clinton Administration.
So conservative bias can be trusted, but liberal bias is evil and wrong.
Does that even pass the laugh test?
Has Bush even been claiming Iraq had WMD? Are you more in the know than the man who started the war? Hurry, go tell Bush that we found WMD, he bought into the liberal bias about his own war.
Ya, many of media types are probably evil, but my problem is the intentional misleading of the American public. The American public wouldn't have been as divided and ripped apart for political gain if the liberal media was honest in their reporting...Almost no moron in America realizes Saddam had connections with terrorists, or that Saddam had WMD and everybody including Democrats said so...If the media was objective they would have outlined how Bush's case for Iraq was the exact case Dems made.
Saddam didn't have WMD. Even Bush will admit that now.
How is MSNBC liberal bias misleading Americans any different from FNC's conservative bias? Fox is just as bad as MSNBC, but at least MSNBC's slogan isn't "fair and balanced".
Yes he did. I hope you aren't one of those total morons who claims Saddam didn't have WMD, but then when I prove it you say something like "but that wasn't enough WMD"...It is either he had them or he didn't...You can't say he didn't have them if they were found in Iraq...PERIOD!
What were those chemical weapons tipped missiles? Go ahead and back peddle...I think the liberal talking point is "but they were old."...But they did exist, so to say they didn't is an absolute lie.
If they're old, and outdated, and the canisters of yellow cake are unusable, then they're not weapons of MASS destruction, hence the name MASS destruction.
The yellow-cake was absolutely usable and proof that Saddam was busy attempting to arm himself with nukes...He was nearly successful as he had the scumbags at the UN funding his evil by that scam "oil for food", in which UN scumbags were sucking the oil from Iraq and getting very stinky rich.
The WMD tipped missiles were there...To say they weren't is a lie...They were still (although degraded) capable of killing a lot of people ("mass")...Saddam could have made more WMD very quickly.
You're just making stuff up now. No one is claiming Bush found WMD, if we actually found them it'd be a huge story. No Republican is making the case we found WMD, so either they were tricked by the liberal media that they don't exist, or they really don't exist. I find it hard pressed to believe all the pro-war Republicans in Congress just don't know yet that we found WMD
Grammer: "if we actually found them it'd be a huge story."
Was it a huge story when the Marines falsely accused of murdering innocent civilians in Haditha were found innocent a big story? Was it a big story when Joe Wilson was caught lying about what he found in Niger? Was it a big story when Valerie Plame lied by saying she didn't send her Bush hating husband to Niger to gather intelligence?...Why would you think the find of WMD would be a huge story? Finding WMD destroys Dems and the media.
No, you are just an intellectual lightweight. You can't comprehend what is beyond your knowledge base. To claim that the media would admit their own mistakes is the height of ignorance on your part. The media is masterful of lying to the American public, and then when they are disproven they change the subject and never admit their lies.
Why would the media not report on weapons of mass destruction? CNN hasn't, not even the conservative FNC has made the claim that we found them... well, the moderates on FNC haven't made the claim, anyways. I don't think there are any liberals on FNC.
Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee:
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction...Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent...Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal"
See, that's not what we were told. We were told possibility of a mushroom cloud, that he was in the process of attaining nuclear warheads. Not potentially toxic if you breath it in, canisters that hadn't been touched since 1993.
That is what I love about you Democrats. Ya'll don't require facts, and if they do happen to ruin your little brainwashed emotion driven hate-fest, all you need to do is move the goal posts...Brilliant!
Grammer: "We were told possibility of a mushroom cloud"
That is what we get for relying on Clinton Administration intel...Of course the media didn't seem to find it newsworthy that the Bush warning about the nuclear threat of Saddam was the very same thing the Clinton regime put forth...Pesky facts, the media can't be bothered with them.
If WMD were found (degraded or not), then Saddam failed to declare them. Saddam had 12 years to comply, he didn't, and now he is dead (thanks to Bush alone)...If you and the Democrats had your way, Saddam would have reconstituted his WMD programs, and many millions more would have died under his boot...Bush and Bush alone takes credit for liberating his people from his brutal iron fist.
Except after the first Iraq invasion, defeat, and consequent surrender, Saddam surrendered on terms of condition. One was to allow U.S.and UN inspect for weapons. He agreed, then reneged for 10+years. The "unusable "yellowcake and any other weapons weren't allowed to be seen for that determination. Are you gonna' assume best behavior from the likes of him?
Um, yes he did have WMD, but that is irrelevant. If you talk to most morons (liberals) they will say Bush lied by saying Saddam had WMD...This belief is mistaken and intentionally so. To claim Bush lied, but the Democrats didn't, is deceptive to the point of treasonous. The intent of the lie is to make Bush look bad and make the Democrats look good...but the Democrats believed Saddam had WMD too...Do you see my point?...Hatred of Bush and the love of Obama are both created by a lying media.
Coming from an uninformed ignoramous like yourself I'll take that as a complement.
Choke on this quote from a DemocRAT:
I must say I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. -- Lee Hamilton (9/11 Commission)
I don't blame the GOP for voting down the U.S. Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act.
I blame the TeaPArty. They are corrupted by foreign funds and media (like australian owned foxNews). I think once they are voted out the GOP will regain credibility.
Until then, there votes are stealing the American tax-payer money to create oppurtunity in india and phillipines.
In essence, they want the US to use Federal funds to reduce it's own GNP. It only makes sense to a foreigners who h8 USA.
NanoEmpyrean 3 days ago
GOP has voted that outsourcing in the private sector, justifies US tax-payer dollars going to workers overseas. No corporation wants to pay their workers, but leaching off the American tax-payer is not the answer. I understand why foreigners and foreign companies (like australian owned FoxNews) would approve of ripping off the American tax-payer, but why should educated news media?
It's not biased to love ur country and it's citizens.
NanoEmpyrean 4 days ago 2
@NanoEmpyrean,
To understand outsourcing you must understand why. Regulations and taxation. This isn't due to the GOP, but due to big government Democrats. Blaming the GOP is pure propaganda and you are a victim to it. Those blaming the GOP are the people responsible, and Democrats are masters at the art of creating the problem and then blaming their opponents.
mulhollanddose 3 days ago
@mulhollanddose
"regulations". GOP's inability to specify is another concern.
By deregulation do they mean expedite the process of bringing new drugs to the market (good), or creating another ENRON that will bleed another state dry (bad)?
If they can't state their case in front of their people, they are probably wrong.
NanoEmpyrean 3 days ago
Okay, she has liberal bias, what of it? Try asking people from conservative sources if they have conseervative bias. All media is biased, liberal, conservaative, all of it. Fox is not more or less biased than anything else
princeofalbany 1 week ago
Who frickens cares fox...she was interviewed about her personal beliefs...she wasnt on fox and friends or the mourning news. She was being herself. The chains were off. Fox and pretty much all MSM basically say the same things for whichever side they represent, only they do during so called "news" shows.
And mulhollanddose...you think Fox is fair and balanced?? Watch liberalviewer's channel sometime.
Theres a reason why Fox viewers are the least informed and or most misinformed....
Shadownian 2 months ago
hahahaha look at Fox, its more of a comedy then news
TherealDucksauce4 2 months ago
I found it ironic how it was Fox News pointing the finger at someone else's bias.
IJUSTLOVETURTLES 3 months ago
@IJUSTLOVETURTLES,
Ya, we want Fox singing in perfect harmony with the Democrat media. How terrible it is for Fox to tell a story not in lockstep with the leftists...What idiocy you parrot...You leftists hate free speech. If you didn't you would celebrate Fox. They don't suck Democrat dick, and you liberals hate that.
mulhollanddose 3 days ago
@mulhollanddose First off: I'm a libertarian, not a liberal. I fucking hate liberals, admittedly as much as I hate blind and subservient neocons. Second, your entire post was one giant strawman argument. Have you not seen Fox's entire primetime lineup? Do you hear the amount of commentary this "reporter" is making? It's one neocon after another, and YOU'RE the indoctrinated one walking in lockstep if you refuse to admit that obvious fact.
IJUSTLOVETURTLES 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
so liberal bias IS a ponzi scheme within without
/watch?v=SvZn_zX_SeU
SuperMegaUberGenius 4 months ago
LOL how does this show liberal bias? its just men talking shit on her
and im pretty sure they dont claim to be fair and balanced like fox does(idk, i dont watch that station). i think it is insane to consider fox balanced news though. i dont have a problem with them having a conservative bias, as long as they are not claiming to be right in the middle while doing it.
ever wonder why every anchor uses the same word of the day? because they are told what to say!
Morophin3 4 months ago
@Morophin3,
This video shows Katie Couric admitting her bias. She isn't billed as a commentator, yet she injects her opinion on what and how she covers the news. She skews it dishonestly.Some people buy this shit, but less and less. This is why Fox whips the major networks ass...Fox may be biased, but compared to ABC, seeBS, NBC and CNN they look like models of objectivity...Fox has balanced debate, whereas the rest have a bunch of leftists just telling you what to think.
mulhollanddose 4 months ago
@mulhollanddose higher ratings does not equal truth. Fox is entertainment. i dont watch CBS, but i dont think they claim to be fair and balanced like Fox does. Fox anchors say things that make people think one way ALL THE TIME. they comment on the subject, saying they are for or against it. and they also show christians in a positive light, while muslims in a negative light.
i rewatched the video and all i see is katie saying she is against the war. whats the problem?
Morophin3 4 months ago
@Morophin3,
Please. The DNC and the media coordinate regularly their talking points. The establishment (non Fox) media gets the DNC talking points and that becomes echoed throughout the media...What is wrong with you leftists that you hate diversity of thought so much? Ya'll claim to be all about diversity, but it is clearly all about skin color and sexual perversity, but any diversity of thought becomes demonized, ridiculed and attacked...It reminds me a lot of Adolph Hitler.
mulhollanddose 4 months ago
@mulhollanddose LOL yeah okay...
the reason Fox is attacked is because it lies and tells the sheep that white christians are good and muslims are terrorists. how come everyone suddenly thought obama was a socialist kenyan? FOX. they are a conservative station. there is nothing wrong with that, UNLESS you claim to be fair and balanced. they are not, so they get called out for it.
Morophin3 4 months ago
@mulhollanddose you really think fox hosts dont get their message of the day from murdoch? how come they all of a sudden all use the same word or phrase?
why do you think leftists hate diversity of thought? and why are you mentioning skin color and sexual perversity?
Morophin3 3 months ago
@Morophin3,
Murdoch is out to make a buck. The truth sells and so Murdoch offers it. Watch Fox, they have ample debate where they have equal representation. They have Democrats like Chris Wallace and Shepherd Smith. They have liberals on regularly to discuss issues...They are unique for these reasons. No other channel comes close to that type of objective news analysis.
mulhollanddose 3 days ago
omc670 war is coming.
omc670 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the "lefty biased" was created by escapist whom wish to poison the well, for everyone who disagrees with them. Majority of American's are liberal, we just don't care about them because they don't vote.
which is more likely:
-there's a global liberal conspiracy infecting all major networks except FoxNews.
-Or some wealthy foreigner is using his news group to siphon american funds.
NanoEmpyrean 6 months ago
Well that really doesn't surprise me being that her sister is a Democratic congresswoman!
fontanaman13 8 months ago
@daoriginalaidaman,
Ya, it is obvious that Fox employs more Democrats, and has more Democrats on to debate, than any other liberal news station has Republicans on. That is a fact...That is fair and balanced.
mulhollanddose 8 months ago
@mulhollanddose where did you get your numbers on Fox having more democrats on than liberal stations have republicans?
Morophin3 4 months ago
@Morophin3,
I watch them all. It is clear as the driven snow. Fox's Sunday show has Chris Wallace (a liberal hosting). No other network has had a conservative at the top of their ticket EVER. Rachel Maddow NEVER has Republicans on. Chris Matthews has an occasional Republican on, buried by about ten liberals. Fox has Greta (a liberal), Whorealdo Riviera (a liberal), Shepherd Smith (a liberal), and every show has a strong Democrat spewing the Democrat talking points.
mulhollanddose 4 months ago
@mulhollanddose i would hardly call chris wallace a liberal. i think jeraldo revera is a libertarian. greta is a scientologist(nuts?), and her husband worked for palin. i would not call these people 'strong democrats'.
im not sure about shepherd smith.
and rachel maddow has michael steele on her show
what else you got? any facts or numbers?
Morophin3 4 months ago
and btw, they have democrats and liberals on all the time, so that america can see how their arguments shamble in the light of the truth.
colinjrob1 8 months ago
@daoriginalaidaman well i mean they did have alan colmes, but they probably got tired of his slanderous liberal fucking nonsense and his deathly appearance.
colinjrob1 8 months ago
@daoriginalaidaman You obviously have never seen fox news. They have democratic guests and commentators on all of the time. Thats a complete Joke.
getrichwithpaul 8 months ago
BBC News ftw
mimisnowball 8 months ago
@daoriginalaidaman,
How come last election NBC had Maddow and Olberman doing their election night coverage? You didn't see Fox using Hannity or Beck or O'Reilly...Fox is unique in that their head anchor is a Democrat, and they employ several Democrats at high levels. The rest of the media doesn't even consider hiring Republicans at high places within their machines.
mulhollanddose 8 months ago
Think about it most of the media staff have liberal arts degrees from a liberal arts university, taught by liberal professors (Liberal arts professor; losers who couldn't get a real job in his or her field, so they teach the same crap they themselves couldn't get a job for). Liberal media bias= hell ya. Notice when you disagree with liberals your either a racist, Uncle Tom or an idiot.
Tsugua21 10 months ago
Don't know what the big deal is with network anchors being non objective. They are all well known progressives which is how they get hired in the first place. That's why FOX gets attacked by most of the media. Because they are not just mouthpieces for the leftist agenda. They stand alone in a sea of red and don't just cater to the leftist coastal city's.
SuperBigblue19 1 year ago
2/2 I want to see you talk back the way Clair Huxtable did, and get slapped across the face consistent with [4:34] of the Qu’ran. I also want Bill’s friends to come over and play some Poker, and you disagree with one of Bill’s friends, and Bill will say, “He’s right, his word is worth twice yours, woman!” consistent with [4.11]. That Bill Cosby would be such a card! Enlightenment could not be funnier.
.
Allen West 2012
Fashionificationful 1 year ago
Katie Couric is part of liberal bias. She trumped any Palin gaffe with her Muslim Cosby Show idea.
1/2
Katie, only if you played the Muslim wife version of Clair Huxtable. I want to see you wear a burka during the entire series, because that’s what respectful muslim women do. I want to see lots of scenes where you don’t want sex, and your “Bill Cosby” plows his fields essentially raping you consistent with [2. 223] of the Qu’ran. Damn that’s just slap-stick comedy right there!
Fashionificationful 1 year ago
Couric sux
,i'm glad we got Sadam should not be in Afghanistan .CBS sux so does NBC , and especially MSNbc...ABC still holding on barely
lrinebo 1 year ago
she is quite DUMB
trianglepoints 1 year ago
This broad is an idiot,,not for AMERICA since her husband died..I remember in the mid too late 70's...how old is she ..she would carry day's old sandwich;es in her purse and tell the audience and laugh about it..my Mom thought she was a silly twit..btw HOW did you name your offspring ..how did you come up w/ these names for your offspring..HAGHA..how did you come up w/ thoose NAMES of your offspring couric....u- b a fool..go on woman..what goes around ..comes around....HAHAHA
trianglepoints 1 year ago
wait.. isn't the skinny little scrawny guy suppose to be a liberal? why isn't he helping couric out??
mmmodafoca 1 year ago
where was this liberal bias during the start of the war!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DSD1v57BG32 1 year ago
if havent fought in that god forsaken war you opinion doesnt mean shit! so blow it out your ass
bdragonseven 1 year ago
I cannot stand Katie Cullic!
kilokipo 1 year ago
yeah and colmes is quiet the whole time, cause if he opens his mouth he's gonna spew liberal garbage.
colinjrob1 1 year ago
I can't even understand what she is saying. Is this an extract of some random line w/o full subject? I don't get it...
skib1234 1 year ago
NOOOOOO really? Katie COURIC is NOT a fair and professional "journalist"? HUGE surprise! NOT! But she is kissing the right asses, so she does not PAY for her low life ways..she gets prizes for them! She was smart to get such a lucrative deal when she went to evening news...they cant afford to buy her out and still pay a REAL journalist. She's just a cheap pundit, and a bad one at that.
SPIRITOF76goeson 2 years ago 4
CBS=
Continuous Bull Shit
tgalaxy5007 2 years ago 12
seeBS
mulhollanddose 2 years ago 3
Couric is grossly biased to the left. If you watch all of her interviews of important political figures especially those running for Pres. you will see a stark difference in how she handles Dems vs. Repubs. She gushes and smiles at the dems and really enjoys kissing fanny. Then she paints a fake stern face to throw them a softball that she probablly let them hold before the interview. She can hardly maintain her stern face cause her eyes are gushing love.With Repubs its grouchy/rude hardball atw
criticalgal 2 years ago 4
And somehow this queen of liberal P.C. fluff news wins all these major news awards - guess the people giving the awards have the same credibility as the news outlets they're awarding - zero!
phantomlord54 2 years ago 4
@criticalgal Agreed Katie Couric is so liberal, I have to grind my teeth when I watched her on the morning show once in awhile. Journalist? More like liberal spokesman!
Aprilmax010 2 years ago 10
Where's the proof she's left wing? Asking someone a 'tough' question isn't expressing a view. That's all that she does in the above clip
Redcarpet01 1 year ago
CNN, FOX, and MSNBC are equally bias and full of shit.
dlf09 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow..fox news talking and criticising others for bias? Fox noise talking about other news having a bias!? FARCE NEWS TALKING ABOUT HOW ITS BAD TO HAVE A BIAS!? WOW.
Fox news is so biased it doesn't see its own bias and any criticism to anything near the right is a liberal bias...wow.
SamuraiKnights 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There is no evidence here of liberal bias, how the hell you come up with that!? She answered questions in an interview and obvious things like YES the media were misled and did misleading for everything the right-wing was gushing over which was war and who cares what for...sickos.
Thank god for FOX!? For what pointing and laughing at! They are a joke of an organization. Blatant servants of the Repubs and engage in countless lies to throw red meat to the braindead they rely on.
Navywxman 2 years ago
I am sorry, but isn't Katie a whore for seeBS? Weren't they the news organization that used forged and falsified documents to undermine Bush in 2004 to fool idiots into hating Bush?...And you criticize Fox News?...You are a fucking moron.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
So says the mayor of morons lmao!
Bush undermined Bush and already had signifigant numbers hating him, a majority of the public that just kept growing and rightfully so. Not for some bs falsified documents.
Yes I will criticize FOX news because they are garbage. They are a lie factory. I have never seen so much blatant BS pumped out into the media before in all my years and uneducated clowns like your self actually buy it. How pathetic is that!
Sorry, a fucking moron is all you buddy
Navywxman 2 years ago
And btw, I don't think the number is nearly that high. Conservatives have, obviously, gotten a much bigger share of the media, esp. talk radio. It's closer to 70 or 80%, at best. 98%?? Don't make me laugh. Who told you that silly statistic?
The sad thing, though, is that you assume there's some sinister agenda. But I think the reality is just that they unconsciously or subconsciously report liberal and think that 'being liberal' means being objective.
whoo689 2 years ago
Conservatives control a very small amount of the media. Conservative publications have a very small audience. Talk radio is just radio, and AM to make it even smaller...Then there is Fox News, and only their cable division...All mainstream news, Hollywood and the music industry pumps out liberal propaganda and they nearly monopolize the media market...Maybe not 98%, but a good 90% of the media is controlled by liberals.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago 13
Comment removed
SWKentertainment 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mulhollanddose wow dude, go outside and stop listening to the voices coming through your AM radio. the conservative media is every bit as large as the "liberal" one, and btw, "liberal media" is the last resort of people who don't have facts on their side.
and on another note, your video doesnt support your claim at all. funny, a conservative completely bypassing the truth. whoduhthunk
SWKentertainment 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mulhollanddose wow dude, go outside and stop listening to the voices coming through your AM radio. the conservative media is every bit as large as the "liberal" one, and btw, "liberal media" is the last resort of people who don't have facts on their side.
and on another note, your video doesnt support your claim at all. funny, a conservative completely bypassing the truth. whoduhthunk
SWKentertainment 1 year ago
@mulhollanddose
GOP says outsourcing in the private sector, justifies US tax-payer dollars going to workers overseas. No corporation wants to pay their workers, but leaching off the American tax-payer is not the answer. Again i understand why foreigners and foreign companies (like australian owned FoxNews) would approve of ripping off the American tax-payer, but why should educated news media?
It's not bias to love America.
Australian owned FoxNews just spends time routing against the USdolla
NanoEmpyrean 4 days ago
Katie Couric should be a journalist when she's at her news desk or doing an interview on tv, but other than that, she's free to be herself. If she's not representing CBS at some point in time, why should she have to be objective and not express herself? Who ever said journalists have to be ALWAYS objective no matter what? They can't have opinions and views on their free time? There's no contract saying that, either. So get off your high horse.
whoo689 2 years ago
This particular incident in no way "demonstrates" bias. Just because she's a reporter AT HER JOB, she can't have her own opinions on her free time? She was being INTERVIEWED! She wasn't the one doing the interview. My god, you people who bitch about bias are idiots.
As if Fox is ANY better. Please. All the media today sucks. I don't see both sides in this debate. They only invited a CONSERVATIVE guest to talk about it, perhaps one of the dumbest ones, too (Brent BOZO).
whoo689 2 years ago
Where was the liberal guest to counteract Bozo on this clip? I don't see him! So much for "presenting both sides" at Fox. And don't try to make it seem like Colmes is a good liberal commentator. He sucks at it. He's a weakling. I'd rather a monkey do his job on Hannity and Colmes.
whoo689 2 years ago
whoo,
If you think that Katie Couric doesn't manipulate the news to suit her leftist agenda, you are a fool. When it is 98% liberals controlling content, and they have an agenda (like electing Obama), they are capable of any and every type of treachery to achieve their ends...Katie knew Democrats made the same case Bush did in the run up to the war, but she chose to omit that...This makes her a liar.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
I never said there isn't a liberal bias, but in this particular interview, you savage her for speaking her mind on her own time. She's not doing her anchor work during the interview, so who cares what she said. It's like when you guys bitched about Jim Lehrer having contributed to Democratic campaigns and being a debate moderator. I mean, is a person who moderates or is a journalist supposed to NEVER have their own opinions or vote for the person tehy think is right?
whoo689 2 years ago
I highly doubt that the editors and managers of the mainstream media sit down every morning and say, "How can we manipulate the news to help liberals/Democrats and liberal causes?" Bias is usually something that's more subconscious.
And plus, most of these big-media outlets are in liberal cities! So naturally, a lot of the people working there will be liberal. And those w/ liberal views will tend to see 'liberal' reporting as better than conservative, and vice versa. They'll hire libs.
whoo689 2 years ago
Man, it's just disgusting how many liberals think the entire news channel is biased.
Biased? Whatever you say hahaha
USNostalgiaFreak 2 years ago
The bias of FOX grttin true dirt on BO's "alma Mater, and most fervent supporters-ACORN, while the other media only reluctantly started minimal coverage for realization they looked bad by "dereliction of duty".
timghouston 2 years ago
Comment removed
visfati 2 years ago
Fox commentators are largely Conservative. CNN and MSNBC commentators are largely Liberal.
The difference is.... Fox invites more opposing viewpoints into the debate.
On CNN and MSNBC.... there is little debate. There's no alternative viewpoint presented to the public for consideration.
Not to mention, I find CNN's and MSNBC's fact base and level of argumentation extremely weak and flawed.
It's like they won't let a fact slip in that might challenge their world view.
visfati 2 years ago 2
If by "invites more opposing viewpoints into the debate." you mean scream at them and cut their mics then yes.
Saying Fox News invites opposing viewpoints to debate is like saying Pro wrestling is an athletic competition.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Attempting to declare that Fox doesn't invite opposing viewpoints is like attempting to declare sailing is not a watersport...The ignorance is baffling.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
I never said they don't, only that much of it is staged and regulated to give the appearance of the conservative viewpoint as winning.
If Fox News actually invited people who stand for their beliefs like Noam Chomsky and didn't cut people's mics then it would be a different story.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Chomsky is a neo-communist America hater. The guy wouldn't last a round in an honest debate. Chomsky filibusters and bloviates endlessly. It is next to impossible to get an honest two-way dialogue with the POS.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Chomsky is literally magnitudes the exact opposite of what you described.
Look at the Chomsky vs. William F. Buckley debate, he won using cold hard facts and logic.
If Chomsky could take on Buckley with no problem O'rielly is like a small child.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Chomsky is a lightweight pro-communist tool...Chomsky is a lying sack of excrement.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Yeah Chomsky sure lied about how Reagan gave billions to Saddam along with military aid.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Where's all the talk from the media about how Obama should pull the media out from Iraq? Hmmm.... After all those years bashing Bush, how come the media has fallen silent?
I wonder.
visfati 2 years ago 2
PS....
Particularly since he ran on a platform of pulling the troops out.
::sigh::
visfati 2 years ago
He assigned a date for withdrawal months ago.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Withdrawal was in the works way before that con-man Obama stepped in office.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Except no one but Obama and the Dems wanted to withdraw.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Obama and the Dems wanted us to withdraw and declare defeat. You are mistaken, they were not the only ones who wanted us to withdraw and declare defeat, the terrorists did to...The terrorists and the Dems didn't get their way.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Insurgents aren't terrorists, and honestly they had a right to attack back after we destroyed their country for the false cause of WMDs.
If North Korea attacked us for kidnapping Korean citizens (which is untrue) America would attack back too.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Insurgents aren't terrorists? So how do you explain them being the single largest mass murderers in Iraq???...I can't even count the amount of innocent women and children killed by insurgent bombs...While Bush was trying to kill these scumbags, Democrats were trying to kill the chances of Bush stopping them...The Democrats wanted to hand Iraq over to the terrorist insurgents.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Dems didn't want to be in Iraq to begin with.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Umm, actually I asked for a date of withdrawl. Not blanket statements designed to deflect.
SeanP7195 2 years ago
While you are at it, why don't you ask when Clinton is gonna make good on his promise to pull us out of Kosovo???...Oh ya, double standard...What happened to the good old days when Bush was in office and the anti-war protests were raging? Oh ya, a Democrat is in office...The anti-war folks musta got the memo that now a Democrat is in office they gotta STFU.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
That's a pretty stupid argument to make because then you should be saying "when are we going to pull out of Germany with the military bases we put in in WWII." Plus it's not like Obama campaigned to bring back all US troops just Iraq forces.
This isn't even taking into account that the NATO bombings where relatively tame and strategically sound compared with billions given to Saddam in hopes that he does things well.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
It displays the rank hypocrisy and two-facedness of the Democrat party and his liberal special interest groups. Even the anti-war protestors have STFU because their ultra-radical liberal brand of Democrat is in office...Clinton promised to pull us out of a war of choice in Kosovo, a war that supported Islamic terrorists...Yet you never heard Democrats one bit critical...If Gore handled Iraq exactly the same they would be calling him a hero.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
The difference between Kosovo and Iraq is that in Kosovo we only demilitarized them (targeted military or strategic areas) while in Iraq we were forced to do nation building. One was a moderate success with few (relatively) casualties and one was a huge disaster.
Also in case you've been ignoring politics for the past 30 years we haven't had very many liberal dems in office period, and it's a complete joke to call the guy who signed NAFTA "liberal".
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Kosovo was more about distracting America from Clinton's massive criminality and his sexual harassment. We had ABSOLUTELY no justifiable reason being there. Muslims invaded and harassed Serbians and Serbians responded. The Clinton Administration justified air bombing Serbian civilian targets killing well over 1,000 people based on a proven lie. He claimed Milosevich was committing genocide which never happened...After this true war crime was committed we were promised to leave by 1998.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
The 1000+ casualties and justification is still no ware near as bad as the tens of thousands and lack of WMDs in Iraq.
The point is yes Kosovo was unwarranted but to say it's a double standard to not criticize Clinton for Kosovo and to criticize Bush is silly because of the difference of sheer scope and outcome of the two wars.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Speaking of silly, claiming Iraq was a quagmire and incompetently waged is a bit silly too. Bush's waging of war in Iraq make FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson look like war-mongering blood-thirsty fools.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
No not really.
FDR was in charge of WWII and last time I checked we won that war. JFK and LBJ is debatable but at least they didn't wage two wars at once.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
The only reason we won WWII is because we had the media, Hollywood and the taxpayers paying for pro-war propaganda. Of course the fact that the Democrat party had a soft spot for Joseph Stalin helped.
You are right, LBJ and JFK didn't wage 2 wars simultaneously...hell, they couldn't even manage one without losing 58,000 American lives and then having their own party making success impossible...They did the same thing to Korea.
Democrats have no biz criticizing Bush's handling of war.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Because there's no difference between old democrats and new left anti-war democrats....
lol most LBJ hawk dems became neocons anyway sooo.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Iraq was anything but a huge disaster. The claim that it was a huge disaster was offered by Democrat politicians that wanted people to believe that it was a huge disaster...Apparently the Democrats memory stops when it becomes politically expedient to forget the Democrats wars and the incompetent bloodbaths that they subjected Americans and the world to...Do yourself a favor and compare Iraq to Germany, Japan, Korea or Vietnam...Probably a better idea to go bury your head in the sand.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Unless we magically find find WMDs Iraq will always be a huge disaster period.
And even if we "win" the war it'll just be an example of legitimate American imperialism.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Actually, more than half of them did. Saddam butchered the Shi'ites, gassed the Kurds, invaded Iran, annexed Kuwait, and launched missiles at Israel. We punished him and democratized a Middle Eastern nation. Do you like democracy? Or would you rather support a dictator?
Big gvt., big gvt... no wonder why you voted for Obama.
ColtBarrettUSA 2 years ago
uuuumm the US gave Saddam anthrax and billions of dollars in the 80s...we actively helped by providing him chemical weapons when he gassed the kurds.
like are you stupid or just ignorant?
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
No we didn't, jackass. We may have authorized the sale by our private enterprise of certain chemicals that could be used for nefarious purposes, but with absolutely no expectation of nefarious usage. It really is irrelevant anyway. The only thing even remotely deadly that we allowed to be traded were helicopters.
I don't even see why you bring it up. If people like you and the backstabbing liberals had their way, Saddam would still have rape rooms, torture chambers, children's prisons, etc.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Uuuum like no like seriously I'm not like stupid or like ignorant.
There are no records that the US gave Saddam anthrax. That, my friend, you seem to have fabricated. We also didn't ask that he gas the Kurds, or do any of the other things that I previously listed. If you want to surrender to tyranny, please feel free to do so, but not in my name. You're going to have to give up a lot of your own liberties when you surrender to these people. Republicans aren't nearly as right wing as they are.
ColtBarrettUSA 2 years ago
um try the
"Second Staff Report on U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq and The Possible Impact on the Health Consequences of the War"
Also the UN weapons inspector David Kelly verified this soooo
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Also the US gave hundreds of MK-84s to Saddam and a bunch of other goodies.
AndroidPolitician 2 years ago
Actually, during Obama's campaign, he stated he would bring the troops home, "the Friday that he got elected". Now, they set up a date to "discuss" bringing "some" troops home nearly 2 years after his first day in office. Yikes, then he turned around and added 30k troops to Afghanistan. So much for your anti-war President. Wake up people. Stop getting conned.
SeanP7195 2 years ago
Would you be so kind as to tell us what that date is?
SeanP7195 2 years ago
Comment removed
visfati 2 years ago
Comment removed
visfati 2 years ago
you stupid ass pussy librial seem to forget bill clinton was bombing the hell out of IRAQ under resolution 687. and WMD was not the only reason to invade IRAQ called ties to terrorists well documented. Clinton should have grown a pair of balls and take out bin laden when he could have and Saddam ,
navyman0290 2 years ago
Comment removed
muIhoIIanddose 2 years ago
Couric is pushing forward this theory that it was the Bush Administration that misled us into war...It is a lie and Couric knows it...It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my political leanings to come to this conclusion.
If Couric was honest she would objectively analyze the Democrat party and the fact that they made the exact same case Bush did.
iSwSDvgw5Uc
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
i hope u know that this is a fox video talking smack, this video is biased
you prove no point when u have to use fox news as support, they were going to try to smear her anyways because she totally screwed palin over with her questions
eman402 2 years ago
Fox is far and away more trustworthy than the liberal propaganda machine Katie works for. She works in establishment media that is devoted to pushing forward Democrat party-line propaganda...Couric knows full well that the Democrat media and the Democrat party both made the same case for war Bush did...In short, Katie and the Democrat party have pushed forward a stinking filthy lie and she knows it.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Each side thinks the other side is all wrong, spinning everything their way, be it right or left. There is no such thing as impartial media. Consider the source, whether it's Bill O'Reilly, Keith Olberman, or even Jon Stewart. The fact that they spend so much time cutting each other down says more than what any of them actually say.
e4e5Nf3Nc6Bb5 2 years ago
Given that every side is spinning their way does not mean they are equally wrong. O'Reilly doesn't devote a fraction of his time cutting the leftists down (Olberman, Stewart, etc).
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
I agree with you on that one. It seems all Olbermann does is point out negative things about republicans, conservatives, etc. and doesn't spend time speaking out in support of democrats, liberals.
When George Washington retired from public life, one of his warnings to the country was to stay away from a two party political system. America needs a congress with more political parties without a majority. Also, Benjamin Franklin was in favor of an executive branch with 3 members instead of 1.
e4e5Nf3Nc6Bb5 2 years ago
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!!? Bill O'Reilly spends all of his time trying to make democrats look bad and make republicans look good. there is no other "news" show out there where the host regularly yells at the guests and tells them to shut up simply because they disagree with him. Fox news is constantly misleading people and misrepresenting facts. Any bias Katie Couric has is NOTHING compared to Bill O'reilly's bias.
mrslammin 2 years ago
I find it suspicious that you see Fox as so biased, but the other media doesn't seem to bother you much. If you were a fair-minded person Fox wouldn't bother you at all because they would be perceived as a necessary solution to the mountain of massively biased leftist media. Fox cable news is a very small franchise in the media....The only reason they seem biased to your warp little mind is because you are a brainwashed drone. They are more objective and fair than anybody else.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Comment removed
mrslammin 2 years ago
all media bothers me. but what bothers me the most is people taking sides with any media station. how is fox a solution? the answer to bias is not more bias. you call me a brainwashed drone but if you seriously get your news from fox that is exactly what you are. almost nothing bill o'reilly says is based on fact. hes just some crabby old fuck trying to force his views down everyone's throats. i love to hear other's opinions, but stating opinions and calling it "news" is absurd.
mrslammin 2 years ago
They did a DAMN GOOD LOB flushin' RATS out of ACORN!
timghouston 2 years ago
O'Reilly is a commentator. Couric is a news anchor.
Damn, don't you get it? A commentator, by definitions, provides opinion. A PROPER news anchor is not supposed to have an obvious ideological stance.
What part of that don't you understand?
visfati 2 years ago
So what was the connection?
You're a real hyper-partisan, which I believe has distorted your view of what is real and what isn't. Thinking Saddam had WMD, that conservative bias is okay but liberal bias is evil and wrong, and any other such nonsense. It's like you void out anything negative concerning Republican politics, as if to mirror Sean Hannity, god forbid we have any more of those kinds of people.
GrammerNg 2 years ago
Grammer: "Sean Hannity, god forbid we have any more of those kinds of people."
Ya, wouldn't want any more people questioning the establishment. We have way too many people contradicting the leftists as it is...What is with you neo-fascist liberals and your contempt for free speech? Sean Hannity is about one of the only honest voices out there, and his voice is very limited on cable TV and talk-radio.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Nothing new under the sun. She's just stating the obvious.
mainestategop 2 years ago
No, Katie was telling a lie...She knew that Saddam had direct connections to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
"No, Katie was telling a lie...She knew that Saddam had direct connections to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. "
Prove it
GrammerNg 2 years ago
Katie and her fellow travelers in the establishment media were all outlining connections to terrorists long before Bush got in office...They buried this fact by not reporting on it. Their new talking points (Saddam had no connections to Al Qaeda) disallowed objective reporting, as they would look like hypocrites and liars.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
So I take it you're not going to prove it
GrammerNg 2 years ago
Absence of evidence is simply the explanation that omission is another form of propaganda. Given Couric and her liberal network were aware that the Clinton Administration admitted connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and then they ignored to highlight that, is all the evidence a thinking person needs...I am in no way accusing you of being a thinking person.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Ok so you don't have evidence.
Next time, if you're going to make a claim, try to provide proof for it first. Then you won't look like such an idiot.
GrammerNg 2 years ago
To claim that Couric didn't know that Saddam had a direct relationship with several terrorist groups is entirely unbelievable. The fact that she omitted that part of her coverage as the Democrats made multiple claims that Saddam had no connections, makes her a part of the leftist propaganda machine.
No proof is proof. If she did not know, then she is ignorant. If she did know (which she did), then she is a lying rat (this is the most probable possibility).
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
You still have yet to post any proof that Saddam had direct links with al Qaeda
GrammerNg 2 years ago
The question is, why didn't you know it? Is it because the Democrats and their media whores decided it didn't fit in with the bullshit they were selling the American public the last 8 years???...It would be really hard to claim Bush lied unless you put the truth down the Orwellian memory-hole.
Now go look up the 1998 indictment of "Usama Bin Laden" by the Clinton Administration...You will find in that document the connection made, the very connection that many media outlets made before Bush.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
I don't believe it because no one has proven to me a connection with Saddam Hussein and al qaeda. No credible news organization, not even FNC, touts such a thing. I suppose next you're going to tell me we've already found WMDs in Iraq.
GrammerNg 2 years ago
Clinton issued a toothless indictment of Osama in 1998. In that indictment the case is clearly made that Saddam and Al Qaeda worked to develop WMD. During the Clinton years there were many connections made by the media that linked Saddam to terrorist groups...They dropped that narrative down the memory-hole as it no longer fit into their anti-Bush propaganda.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Apparently it was wrong, because we now know Saddam had no connections to al Qaeda, and didn't have any WMD.
GrammerNg 2 years ago
Saddam had WMD and he had connections to Al Qaeda...I know you look like a total jackass admitting it, so you refuse...We found WMD, including 500 tons of yellow-cake, but the media hada narrative and they didn't want anything that undermined it.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
You still haven't proven there were any WMD in Iraq
GrammerNg 2 years ago
Grammer: "Saddam had no connections to al Qaeda"
Then why did Saddam have terrorist training camps in Iraq? Why was Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal welcomed in Iraq? Why was Saddam funding Palistinian suicide bombing terrorists?
Saddam harbored, funded and trained terrorists, and he had a working relationship with Al Qaeda.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
"Saddam harbored, funded and trained terrorists, and he had a working relationship with Al Qaeda."
Prove itttttttttttttttttttt
GrammerNg 2 years ago
Google it..."Saddam connections Al Qaeda"
Be warned, you won't find the stories on your favorite brainwashing channels. You will find the connections in old articles by your favorite liberal propaganda machines, but you won't find recent stories as they don't fit in with the hate-Bush propaganda.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
The first link that came from what you told me to google was a Weekly Standard article, one dating back to 2003, not to mention the WS is a conservative publication. The second link is a Washington Post article saying that the allegation of Saddam-AQ connection is dismissed, and the third is a wikipedia article.
Oh man you totally got me?
lol
GrammerNg 2 years ago
Right. One is a conservative publication (the one that can be trusted...The second is an ultra-liberal propaganda rag...The third is an ultra-liberal propaganda machine...The conservative publication has citations from liberal publications and the Clinton Administration.
Your ignorance blinds you.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
So conservative bias can be trusted, but liberal bias is evil and wrong.
Does that even pass the laugh test?
Has Bush even been claiming Iraq had WMD? Are you more in the know than the man who started the war? Hurry, go tell Bush that we found WMD, he bought into the liberal bias about his own war.
GrammerNg 2 years ago
Ya, many of media types are probably evil, but my problem is the intentional misleading of the American public. The American public wouldn't have been as divided and ripped apart for political gain if the liberal media was honest in their reporting...Almost no moron in America realizes Saddam had connections with terrorists, or that Saddam had WMD and everybody including Democrats said so...If the media was objective they would have outlined how Bush's case for Iraq was the exact case Dems made.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Saddam didn't have WMD. Even Bush will admit that now.
How is MSNBC liberal bias misleading Americans any different from FNC's conservative bias? Fox is just as bad as MSNBC, but at least MSNBC's slogan isn't "fair and balanced".
GrammerNg 2 years ago
Grammer: "Saddam didn't have WMD"
Yes he did. I hope you aren't one of those total morons who claims Saddam didn't have WMD, but then when I prove it you say something like "but that wasn't enough WMD"...It is either he had them or he didn't...You can't say he didn't have them if they were found in Iraq...PERIOD!
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
He didn't have them at all. He had old canisters of weapons that were unusable, and not lethal in any way. Nothing near a weapon of mass destruction
GrammerNg 2 years ago
Grammer: "He didn't have them at all."
What were those chemical weapons tipped missiles? Go ahead and back peddle...I think the liberal talking point is "but they were old."...But they did exist, so to say they didn't is an absolute lie.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
If they're old, and outdated, and the canisters of yellow cake are unusable, then they're not weapons of MASS destruction, hence the name MASS destruction.
GrammerNg 2 years ago
The yellow-cake was absolutely usable and proof that Saddam was busy attempting to arm himself with nukes...He was nearly successful as he had the scumbags at the UN funding his evil by that scam "oil for food", in which UN scumbags were sucking the oil from Iraq and getting very stinky rich.
The WMD tipped missiles were there...To say they weren't is a lie...They were still (although degraded) capable of killing a lot of people ("mass")...Saddam could have made more WMD very quickly.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
You're just making stuff up now. No one is claiming Bush found WMD, if we actually found them it'd be a huge story. No Republican is making the case we found WMD, so either they were tricked by the liberal media that they don't exist, or they really don't exist. I find it hard pressed to believe all the pro-war Republicans in Congress just don't know yet that we found WMD
GrammerNg 2 years ago
Grammer: "if we actually found them it'd be a huge story."
Was it a huge story when the Marines falsely accused of murdering innocent civilians in Haditha were found innocent a big story? Was it a big story when Joe Wilson was caught lying about what he found in Niger? Was it a big story when Valerie Plame lied by saying she didn't send her Bush hating husband to Niger to gather intelligence?...Why would you think the find of WMD would be a huge story? Finding WMD destroys Dems and the media.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
"Was it a huge story when the Marines falsely accused of murdering innocent civilians in Haditha were found innocent a big story?"
Changing the subject is a sign of weakness in your original argument.
GrammerNg 2 years ago
No, you are just an intellectual lightweight. You can't comprehend what is beyond your knowledge base. To claim that the media would admit their own mistakes is the height of ignorance on your part. The media is masterful of lying to the American public, and then when they are disproven they change the subject and never admit their lies.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Why would the media not report on weapons of mass destruction? CNN hasn't, not even the conservative FNC has made the claim that we found them... well, the moderates on FNC haven't made the claim, anyways. I don't think there are any liberals on FNC.
GrammerNg 2 years ago
Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee:
"These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes ... they do constitute weapons of mass destruction...Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent...Anything above zero (percent agent) would prove to be toxic, and if you were exposed to it long enough, lethal"
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
See, that's not what we were told. We were told possibility of a mushroom cloud, that he was in the process of attaining nuclear warheads. Not potentially toxic if you breath it in, canisters that hadn't been touched since 1993.
GrammerNg 2 years ago
That is what I love about you Democrats. Ya'll don't require facts, and if they do happen to ruin your little brainwashed emotion driven hate-fest, all you need to do is move the goal posts...Brilliant!
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
You're crazy
GrammerNg 2 years ago
Grammer: "We were told possibility of a mushroom cloud"
That is what we get for relying on Clinton Administration intel...Of course the media didn't seem to find it newsworthy that the Bush warning about the nuclear threat of Saddam was the very same thing the Clinton regime put forth...Pesky facts, the media can't be bothered with them.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Blame Democrats on your failures
GrammerNg 2 years ago
Yeah, and burns inner oral, optic, and respiratory tissues upon inhalation. Good ol' Mustard gas-used 1st in WW I.
timghouston 2 years ago
If WMD were found (degraded or not), then Saddam failed to declare them. Saddam had 12 years to comply, he didn't, and now he is dead (thanks to Bush alone)...If you and the Democrats had your way, Saddam would have reconstituted his WMD programs, and many millions more would have died under his boot...Bush and Bush alone takes credit for liberating his people from his brutal iron fist.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
Except after the first Iraq invasion, defeat, and consequent surrender, Saddam surrendered on terms of condition. One was to allow U.S.and UN inspect for weapons. He agreed, then reneged for 10+years. The "unusable "yellowcake and any other weapons weren't allowed to be seen for that determination. Are you gonna' assume best behavior from the likes of him?
timghouston 2 years ago
Um, yes he did have WMD, but that is irrelevant. If you talk to most morons (liberals) they will say Bush lied by saying Saddam had WMD...This belief is mistaken and intentionally so. To claim Bush lied, but the Democrats didn't, is deceptive to the point of treasonous. The intent of the lie is to make Bush look bad and make the Democrats look good...but the Democrats believed Saddam had WMD too...Do you see my point?...Hatred of Bush and the love of Obama are both created by a lying media.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago
I think you're really fucking paranoid
GrammerNg 2 years ago
Gram: "I think you're really fucking paranoid"
Coming from an uninformed ignoramous like yourself I'll take that as a complement.
Choke on this quote from a DemocRAT:
I must say I have trouble understanding the flap over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. -- Lee Hamilton (9/11 Commission)
Pull your brainwashed head out of your arse.
mulhollanddose 2 years ago