Re: 2 or 4 wire smoke detector question.

["Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1Cdqi.3999$7w.3227@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >> You have to understand that Fox is not a
> >> news network.  They just make up most
> >> of the crap they report.
> >
> > Name something they made up
>
> Since you asked...
>
> ===============
>
> Here are just a few examples gleaned from the web at:
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/steinreich8.html

I figured you weren't smart enough to make the accusation on your own, there
is a large difference between getting reports in error (which every network
does) and making stuff up

At least the stuff made up by your bud Dan Rather


>
> "Keep in mind that in the first three weeks of March, before the bombs
started officially dropping, Fox was spreading all sorts of
> Pentagon propaganda.  Iraq had "drones" that it could quickly dispatch to
major U.S. metropolitan areas to spread biological agents.
> Saddam was handing out chemical weapons to the Republican guard to use
against coalition troops in a last-ditch red-zone ring around
> Baghdad.  Given what we now know about Iraq, these reports seem to be
laughable fantasies, but they were effective in securing
> public backing for the war.  The following is a short chronicle of lies,
propagation of lies, exaggerations, distortions, spin, and
> conjecture presented as fact.  My comments are in brackets [ ]s."
>
> March 14:  On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is
planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams
> and causing severe flood damage.
>
> March 19:  Fox anchor Shepard Smith reports that Iraqis are planning to
detonate large stores of napalm buried deep below the earth
> to scorch coalition forces.   Fox Military Analyst Major Bob Bevelacqua
states that coalition forces will drop a MOAB on Saddam's
> bunker [!!] and give him the "Mother of All Sunburns."
>
> [After my last article, one sniveling neocon after another wrote me to
tell me I was unqualified to assess defense matters because I
> wasn't a "defense analyst" (never mind that the article wasn't on the war,
and the "real" defense experts made one wrong prediction
> after another on this war).  It's interesting how these sniveling
Frumsters cheer on the college-uneducated Hannity and Limbaugh
> when they make defense analyses supporting the neocon view.  I do know
enough to say that the informed Bevelacqua's suggestion that
> a MOAB would be used on a bunker was puzzling to say the least (given the
reports of less-than-dazzling performance of daisy cutters
> outside caves in Tora Bora).  Anyway, later reports confirmed that GBU-28
bunker busters were used during The Decapitation That
> Apparently Failed.]
>
> March 23: The network begins 2 days of unequivocal assertions that a
100-acre facility discovered by coalition forces at An Najaf is
> a chemical weapons plant.   Much is made about the fact that it was booby
trapped.  A former UN weapons inspector interviewed on
> camera over the phone downplays the WMD allegations and says that
booby-trapping is common.  His points are ignored as unequivocal
> charges of a chemical weapons facility are made on Fox for yet another day
(March 24).  Only weeks later is it briefly conceded that
> the chemicals definitively detected at the facility were pesticides.
>
> [Jennifer Eccleston has to be the worst reporter employed by any network.
She began one segment with a "Hi there!" ? in no response
> to any segue from the relaying anchor at Fox headquarters in New York.
Her bangs are long and constantly blowing in her face in the
> wind.  Her head wobbles from side to side with her nose tracing out a
figure 8 all the while arbitrarily syncopating a monotone
> voice with overemphasis on the last syllables of different words (e.g.,
Bagh-DAD?).  The old, white-haired flag-waving yahoos like
> her not for her professionalism ? she has none ? but because of her
innocent Britney Spearsesque beauty; i.e., she's a typical young
> piece of meat which dirty old men with too much time on their hands
fantasize about.]
>
> March 24:  Oliver North reports that the staff at the French embassy in
Baghdad are destroying documents.  [How could he know this?]
>
> March 24: Fox and Friends. Anchor Juliet Huddy asks Colonel David hunt why
coalition forces don't "blow up" Al Jazeera TV. [The
> context of the discussion makes it clear that she doesn't know the
difference between Al Jazeera and Iraqi TV!!!! Juliet Huddy is a
> beautiful woman but not very bright.]
>
> March 28:  Repeated assertions by Fox News anchors of a red ring around
Baghdad in which Republican Guard forces were planning to
> use chemical weapons on coalition forces.  A Fox "Breaking News" flash
reports that Iraqi soldiers were seen by coalition forces
> moving 55-gallon drums almost certainly containing chemical agents.
>
> April 7:  Fox, echoing NPR, reports that U.S. forces near Baghdad have
discovered a weapons cache of 20 medium-range missiles
> containing sarin and mustard gas.   Initial tests show that the deadly
chemicals are not "trace elements."
>
> [In the coming weeks, this embarrassing non-discovery is quickly stomped
down the Memory Hole.  The missiles were never mentioned
> again.]
>
> April 9:  The crowd around coalition troops toppling the Saddam statue in
Baghdad looks strangely sparse despite the network's
> assertions to the contrary.  The perspective is always in close and even
then there is no mob storming the statue to hit it with
> their shoes. Just a handful of people.  It's constantly asserted that
there's a huge crowd.  [I'm perplexed.  Where's the huge
> crowd?!]
>
> April 10:  Fox "Breaking News" report of weapons-grade plutonium found at
Al Tuwaitha.  [In the coming weeks this "discovery" was
> expeditiously shoved down the Memory Hole as well.]
>
> April 10 (2:59 EDT):  A report noting with surprise "how little" the
Iraqis were celebrating the coalition invasion.  [An
> interesting contradiction of the allegations of widespread celebration
just the day before with the toppling of the Saddam statue.]
>
> April 10 (3 p.m. EDT: Reporter Rick Leventhal)  Fox "Breaking News"
report:  A mobile bioweapons lab is found.  Video of a tiny tan
> truck?about the size of the smallest truck that U-Haul rents ? which had
its cargo bed and fuel tank shot up with bullets after a
> looter tried to drive it away. Repeated assertions that this is most
definitely a "bioweapons" lab.  A graphic sequence is shown of
> a large Winnebago-type vehicle that is massive compared to the tiny truck
found.  The irony of this escapes the Fox newscasters and
> defense "experts."
>
> [This was the first "bioweapons lab" found, not the larger one later found
in Mosul.  A week later it is briefly conceded that the
> tiny truck was probably never a bio weapons lab, but promises that real
ones will pour forth from the landscape continue.  The
> second phantom lab, a large tractor-trailer truck was discovered around
May 2 by Kurdish fighters.]
>
> April 10:  To show that France is in bed with Saddam Hussein, Fox begins
running old footage of Saddam Hussein's September 1975 trip
> to Paris to meet with Jacques Chirac and tour a nuclear power plant.
[Because Fox strives so hard to be "Fair and Balanced," it's
> all the more curious how it fails to inform its audience about another
trip four years later, this one to Baghdad on December 19,
> 1983 made by Reagan envoy and then former secretary of defense Donald
Rumsfeld (see pic below).  The network again, because it's so
> very "Fair and Balanced," also inexplicably forgot to tell its audience
about another trip by Rummy to Baghdad, this time on March
> 24, 1984, the very same day that a U.N. team found that Iraqi forces had
used mustard gas laced with a nerve agent on Iranian
> soldiers.  Rummy obviously wasn't too concerned about the charges of
gassing, as in 1986 when he was considering a run for the
> Republican presidential nomination of 1988, he listed his restoration of
diplomatic relations with WMD-using Iraq as one of his
> proudest achievements.
>
> But all that's an eternity ago for Imperial Conservatives with a 20-second
attention span.  The Fox newscasters rename Jacques
> Chirac "Jacques Iraq"(yuk, yuk, yuk ? what a side splitter!) and keep
going.]
>
> April 7:  Repeated ominous footage of barrels buried in a below-ground
shed near Karbala.  The implication is that the Iraqi
> landscape is replete with these types of shelters, all of them brimming
with evidence of chemical weapons.  [These were revealed to
> be agricultural chemicals as well.]
>
> April 13:  Fox Graphic:  "Bush:  Syria Harboring Chemical Weapons."
>
> [My favorite Fox war commentator is definitely Colonel David Hunt.  From
my canvassing of all the cable network war coverage, it's
> hard to find an analyst who is more dogmatic.  When coalition forces weren
?t greeted with hugs and kisses like he predicted and
> instead encountered stiff resistance from Iraqi forces in Basra and other
places, Davey was all denial.  Everything?s going perfect.
> Rummy is God, hallelujah and praise Dubya!  There's not a problem in Iraq
that can't be solved by blowing some Iraqi's brains out.]
>
> April 15:  Fox analyst Mansoor Ijaz claims that the top 55 Iraqi leaders
(along with the whole stash of chemical and biological WMDs
> they have taken with them) are now living it up in Latakia, Syria.  [This
is the same 55 that appeared on the deck of cards and is
> still being captured ? far from all living it up in Syria.]  On The Fox
Report anchor Shepard Smith completely breaks with any
> pretense of objectivity and openly mocks actor Tim Robbins after playing
an excerpt of Robbins' speech to the National Press Club.
> "Oh, that was so powerful!" Smith mocked.  [Impressive objectivity there,
Mr. Smith.]
>
> April 16:  Fred Barnes on Special Report with Brit Hume blames the looting
of the Iraqi National Museum on the museum staff.  [Right
> now there are so many claims and counterclaims about the looting it's hard
to tell what happened.  In a Fox segment on May 19 a
> coalition official asserted that 170,000 items were definitely not
missing.  Of course he refused to give a ballpark estimate of
> what was missing, which he'd surely have in order to plausibly deny that
the original estimate was wrong.]
>
> April 18:  Bill O'Reilly opens his show calling Iraqis "ungrateful."
>
> April 21:  Bill O'Reilly opens his show calling Iraqi Shiites "ungrateful
SOBs" and "fanatics."  He concludes that "[we] can't
> tolerate a fundamentalist state" in Iraq.
>
> [Whoa, O'Reilly.  I thought we promised the Iraqis that we were going to
implement democracy, not democracy that gives the U.S. the
> election results it wants.  That's not democracy, now, is it?  By now it's
quite clear that despite the spinning on The No Spin
> Zone, Iraq is descending into chaos.]
>
> April 22:  Lt. Colonel Robert Maginnis states on The O'Reilly Factor that
the probability of finding WMDs is a 10 out of 10.  [This
> is the same Robert Maginnis who predicted a double-ring defense of Baghdad
in the Washington Times on January 7.]  O'Reilly states
> that if no WMDs are found within a month from today, then that spells big
trouble.  O'Reilly promises to explore the issue a month
> later.   [Cool, let's hold his feet to the fire on that promise.  On an
earlier show he said that U.S. credibility would be "shot"
> if no WMDs were found. ]
>
> May 8: Fox News Military Analyst Major General Paul Vallely states on The
O?Reilly Factor that "Middle East agents" have told him
> that Iraq?s WMDs along with 17 mobile weapons labs (1 of which was
captured around May 2) are now buried in the Bakaa Valley in
> Syria 30 meters underground.  He also claims that France helped Iraqi
leaders escape to Europe by providing them with travel papers
> [a charge that even the Pentagon later denies although it's apparent
that's where Vallely got his information].
>
> May 11:  On The Fox Report with Rick Folbaum it is conceded that the
nefarious captured trailer contains not a shred of evidence of
> WMDs, but Folbaum hints that what?s important is that the trailer could
have been used to make them.  [Hmmm.  I thought we went to
> war for actual WMDs, not for the ability to make WMDs.]
>
> May 16:  Special Report with Brit Hume.  Muslims, citing Islam's ban of
alcohol, are torching liquor stores and threatening their
> Christian owners.   Under Saddam's secular regime, Christian names were
banned and schools were nationalized, but guns and alcohol
> were freely available; there was tolerance for Iraq's 1 million Catholic
and Protestant Christians.  In New and Improved Neocon
> Iraq, there's a letter circulating in Baghdad threatening violence to even
the families of women who refuse to wear the traditional
> Muslim head covering.  [The report is yet another interesting and
reluctant concession of unintended consequences.]
>
> May 19:  O'Reilly discusses a number of inflammatory and bogus charges
that were floated in the U.S. media about France (e.g.,
> France supplied Iraq with precision switches used in nuclear weapons,
French companies sold spare parts to Iraq for military planes
> and helicopters, France possessed illegal strains of smallpox, France
helped Iraqi leaders escape to Europe by providing them with
> travel papers).  Recall this last charge was made by Major General Paul
Vallely on May 8 on The O'Reilly Factor.  Again, the
> Pentagon denies all such charges although much of the Beltway thinks it's
obvious that the Pentagon is the source of them.  O'Reilly
> claims that Vallely is only irresponsible if the charges don't turn out to
be true.  O'Reilly refers to documents that prove that
> the French government was briefing Saddam right until the war started.
[Briefed on what?]
>
> May 20:  O'Reilly concedes that the Private Jessica Lynch rescue story
could be a fraud, as asserted by the BBC and Los Angeles
> Times columnist Robert Scheer.  "Somebody is lying," he states.  He says
that if the U.S. military has concocted a fraud, then it
> will be a terrible scandal but if the BBC and Scheer are wrong, nothing
will happen to them.  He says he is skeptical of the BBC and
> Scheer.
>
> To prove his point he brings on no other than Colonel David Hunt.  [Geez.
Transcript here.]  Over and over, Hunt calls the
> allegations of staged rescue an "assail on the finest soldiers in the
world."  He claims that the ambulance with Lynch in it that
> drove up to a Marine checkpoint was never shot at, its drivers demanded
$10,000 for information on Jessica, Saddam Hospital was
> guarded by uniformed Iraqi soldiers and Fedayeen, Jessica's life was
saved, and coalition forces didn't trash the hospital.  What
> were his sources for this information?  The special ops members on the
raid, some of whom are his friends and former colleagues.
> Over and over Hunt kept saying, "They're the best soldiers in the world,
they're the best in the world.  Why would they make this
> up?"
>
> [What followed next was an exchange that's priceless and one of many that
goes by far too un-analyzed on Fox every day:]
>
> Hunt:  In my opinion it's an assault, an effrontery to the finest men and
women in our service, it's an assault on Jessica, it's an
> assault on these great guys, these great special operations guys ... at a
minimum we should no longer buy the L.A. Times, no longer
> buy the Toronto Free Press, and shut the BBC off.  It's a government to
government issue...this is calling into question the
> veracity of the finest soldiers in the world and it's uncalled for, it's
absolutely unbelievable."
>
> O'Reilly:  If you [Hunt] turn out to be right, nothing will happen to
Scheer...he'll just go along blithely printing his lies and
> living his life and getting paid for it.
>
> [To the Colonel:  U.S. special ops soldiers may be the best in the world
at what they do, but how does it logically follow from that
> assessment that particular actions taken during the raid were not
excessive and unjustified?   How is the BBC's story an assault on
> Jessica?!  What do you mean when you mention a "government to government
issue" given that the U.S. government now controls Iraq?!
> Is the Pentagon the most effective check on its own possible misdeeds?
How convenient if you're suggesting that it is.  Who is
> your source that Iraqi doctors were trying to ransom Jessica?  Why hasn't
this allegation made its way into any other news reports?]
>
> [To O'Reilly:  If the raid does turn out to be mostly staged, there'll be
no terrible scandal precisely because you, Fox News, and
> the Pentagon will assert just the opposite and allow yet another
embarrassment to slide into the Memory Hole.  This is exactly why
> your demand for accountability from the BBC and L.A. Times is so hollow
and hypocritical.  Instead of plumbing the U.S. military to
> investigate itself, why don't you interview Iraqi doctor Harith
al-Houssona as the London Times did on April 16 (where the story was
> first broken, not by the BBC or Robert Scheer) who actually saved Lynch's
life instead of the U.S. special ops who could have
> jeopardized it?  The doctor testifies that all Iraqi forces left the day
before the raid and that Jessica was delivered by an
> ambulance that had to return to the hospital because it was shot at by
Marines.  Why would he lie?  You say you automatically trust
> the Pentagon.   Why, when tales of Lynch's heroics in fighting off 500
Iraqi soldiers with one hand while severely wounded and tales
> that she had amnesia have already been proven bogus?]
>
> May 22 (5:54 a.m. CDT):  Richard King, a military doctor, appears on Fox
and Friends with promises by the show's hosts that he will
> verify that the Jessica Lynch rescue wasn't staged.  King doesn't prove
anything.  He states that he arrived at Saddam Hospital the
> day after the rescue, concedes damage and mal-treatment of doctors at the
hospital, and that he "was told " that the hospital was
> guarded by hostile forces but doesn't specify who told him.  [The testimon
y of the hospital staff contradicts this last hearsay.]
>
> May 22:  O'Reilly fails to live up to his promise to make a big stink if
no WMDs are found by today.  In his Talking Points Memo he
> wonders why the U.S. has caught such informed Iraqis as Dr. Germ and Ms.
Anthrax and has gotten no leads.  He states that more time
> is needed [contradicting what he said more than a month ago, when he said
that if no WMDs were found after 2 months U.S. credibility
> would be "shot" and there would be big trouble].   He ends his Memo saying
Bush must candidly address the situation soon.
>
> June 2:  [Unfortunately for O'Reilly, Bush isn't candidly explaining
anything.]  A video clip on Fox and Friends is shown with Bush
> in Poland claiming that "[w]e found" weapons of mass destruction.  His
evidence?  Two trailers found near Mosul that were supposedly
> used as mobile bioweapons labs.  [A June 7 article by the Times' Judith
Miller reports serious doubts by some analysts that the two
> trailers were used as mobile bioweapons labs.   Said one senior analyst
about the initial CIA report, it "was a rushed job and looks
> political."   Yes, they violated U.N. resolutions but this is another red
herring to suggest WMDs.]
>
> June 4:  O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo:  [Surreal.]  O'Reilly says that
the WMD issue has now been politicized [!!].   The war was
> a just war because there's now great progress between Palestinians and
Israelis and that alone made the war worthwhile [?!!].  Also
> the mass graves and other horrors discovered add to the case for war.  The
intelligence was either wrong or more time is needed to
> find the WMDs.  [Again contradicting what he said on and before April 22.]
>
> June 11:  Fox reports a bus blast in Jerusalem caused by Hamas, killing 15
and wounding at least 100.  [Looks like the real reason
> for war according to O'Reilly (Israeli-Palestinian peace) has also
disintegrated, but don't expect O'Reilly to admit it.]
>
> ===============
>
> Here's another article on Fox from:
> http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/03/30/fox_news/index.html
>
> The Fox of war
>
> The Bush administration's case for invading Iraq may have been riddled
with unreliable claims, but that didn't stop White
> House-friendly Fox News from pumping it into America's living rooms.
>
> By David J. Sirota
>
> March 30, 2004 | Before the Iraq invasion, the Bush administration made
many declarations to build its case for war: There was "no
> doubt," as the president said, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction,
including nuclear weapons, making it an imminent threat to
> America ; Saddam Hussein was working closely with Osama bin Laden and
al-Qaida; and the invasion would minimize civilian casualties.
>
> While many intelligence and military experts knew how hollow these claims
were, there was one place where the Bush administration
> was given an open microphone: Fox News. By the time U.S. soldiers were
headed across the desert to Baghdad, the "fair and balanced"
> network, owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch, looked like a caricature of
state-run television, parroting the White House's daily
> talking points, no matter how unsubstantiated.
>
> Of course, Fox and the White House had forged their nexus well before
Iraq. Immediately after 9/11, for instance, Fox chief Roger
> Ailes (a former Republican Party media consultant) wrote a confidential
memo to President Bush saying that America wanted him to
> "use the harshest measures possible" in the war on terrorism. On the eve
of the Iraq invasion, the Washington Post reported that
> neoconservative Fox contributors, such as Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard
editor William Kristol, were "well wired" into the White
> House, meeting periodically with top administration national security
officials and "huddling privately" every three months with
> Karl Rove, who was urging Republicans to seek maximum political advantage
from a war in Iraq. Fox News became the White House's most
> reliable amplifier -- claims went from the podium, into the news scripts,
and out to the American public as fact.
>
> Fox News began by broadcasting the Bush administration's line that there
was "no doubt" Iraq had WMD, despite repeated warnings by
> the intelligence community that the WMD case for war was weak and dubious.
As early as August 2002, Fox News contributor Fred Barnes
> said, "We know beyond a shadow of a doubt that [Saddam Hussein] has been
pursuing aggressively weapons of mass destruction,
> including nuclear weapons." He was refuted a month later by UPI, which
reported that "a growing number of experts say that the
> administration has not presented convincing evidence" that Iraq was
pursuing WMD or nuclear weapons. (UPI is owned by the Rev. Sun
> Myung Moon, who also publishes the conservative Washington Times.)
>
> But that did not stop the drumbeat. By spring, Fox was rolling full steam
ahead. On March 23, 2003, Fox headline banners blared
> "Huge Chemical Weapons Factory Found in Southern Iraq" -- a claim that
never panned out. On April 11, a Fox News report announced:
> "Weapons-Grade Plutonium Possibly Found at Iraqi Nuke Complex." Sourced to
an embedded reporter from the right-wing Richard Mellon
> Scaife-owned Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, the story was soon debunked by
U.S. officials.
>
> Bill O'Reilly, host of the most popular Fox News show, "The O'Reilly
Factor," took to the airwaves on March 4, 2003, to ramp up the
> claim that not only did Iraq have WMD, but nuclear weapons. He stated
definitively that "a load of weapons-grade plutonium has
> disappeared from Nigeria" and that the theft "should send a signal to all
Americans that a nuclear device could be planted here."
> When he was challenged on his assertion, he insisted, "You cannot refute,
and neither can anyone else, that we have plutonium
> missing in Nigeria, we have two rogue governments, North Korea and Iraq,
who are certainly capable of aiding and abetting people who
> will plant an atomic device, a nuclear device in a city in this country."
>
> O'Reilly was referring to a story that week about radioactive material
missing in Nigeria. But it was not plutonium, as he claimed,
> or anything nearly as lethal as plutonium. It was a compound called
Americium 241, wholly unsuitable for the creation of the
> imaginary "atomic device" O'Reilly referred to. The compound is commonly
used for industrial purposes, as opposed to plutonium,
> which is used primarily for weapons and nuclear reactors. The compound, in
fact, was misplaced by Vice President Cheney's old oil
> firm, Halliburton. (The Nigerian operation under Cheney has sparked an
international bribery investigation by the Justice
> Department.)
>
> On the Saddam-al-Qaida connection, Fox never considered that the
connection was nonexistent. Barnes declared on Oct. 9, 2002, that
> "the CIA now believes there's a real connection between Saddam Hussein and
al Qaeda, the terrorist group that attacked the United
> States." He provided no evidence. For years, in fact, the CIA was
reporting the opposite.
>
> Sean Hannity, host of the Fox talk show "Hannity and Colmes," claimed with
no proof on Dec. 9, 2002, that al-Qaida "obviously has
> the support of Saddam." He specifically ignored a Los Angeles Times report
of a month earlier that found "U.S. allies have found no
> links between Iraq and al Qaeda." Hannity later announced on April 30,
2003, that he possessed documents proving a "direct link
> between Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network" and the Iraqi regime, and
disparaged critics of the war, saying, "If you listen to the
> people on the left, they're not fazed by this evidence." They may not have
been fazed because earlier that month the Miami Herald
> reported that senior U.S. officials confirmed they had found "no provable
connection between Saddam and al Qaeda."
>
> In June, the chairman of the U.N.'s terrorist monitoring group reiterated
that there was "no evidence linking al Qaeda to Saddam
> Hussein." A month later the L.A. Times reported that declassified
documents from the 9/11 commission had "undercut Bush
> administration claims before the war that Hussein had links to al Qaeda."
That was of no concern to Fox News contributor Ann
> Coulter, who went on the air in September to proclaim: "Saddam Hussein has
harbored, promoted, helped, sheltered al Qaeda members.
> We know that."
>
> Before the war began, Fox tried to minimize the inevitable human cost.
Hannity echoed the administration line, claiming in January
> of 2003 that "Iraqis are not going to be bombed by the United States. The
United States will use pinpoint accuracy, like we always
> do." Within the first few days of the invasion, the New York Times noted
that aid groups estimated "thousands of civilian
> casualties, many more than in the recent conflict in Afghanistan or the
Persian Gulf War of 1991."
>
> Before the war, OReilly issued a promise. "If the Americans go in and
overthrow Saddam Hussein and it's clean, he has nothing, I
> will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush Administration
again, all right?" This February, on ABC's Good Morning
> America, he offered an apology. "My analysis was wrong and I'm sorry. What
do you want me to do? Go over and kiss the camera?" But
> he explained that his lack of skepticism wasn't his fault. "All Americans
should be concerned about this, for their families and
> themselves, that our intelligence isn't as good as it should be." The next
day, back on Fox, O'Reilly claimed the controversy over
> his apology was a plot by the "left wing press" who "used my words to
hammer the President." Then he introduced his next guest on
> what he called "the no spin zone."
>
> But Fox didn't reflect when the network's talking heads were proved wrong.
Instead the talkers blamed others. Hannity said on Aug.
> 20, 2003, that "all the predictions of liberals and Democrats in this
country were wrong about thousands of people [being] dead,
> innocent civilians murdered, and we'd anger the Arab world." Yet, the U.S.
military reports that it "has received more than 15,000
> claims" for compensation for noncombatant Iraqi deaths, with Amnesty
International reporting at least 10,000 civilian Iraqi
> casualties. Meanwhile, the latest Pew Poll shows burgeoning
anti-Americanism, not only throughout the Arab world, but worldwide
> after the Iraq war.
>
> The Fox-Bush alliance was summed up, apparently without irony, by Bill
O'Reilly himself. In his column this week, O'Reilly observed,
> "There is nothing wrong with news organizations endorsing a candidate or a
columnist writing about his or her political preferences.
> But actively participating in political campaigns ... is absolutely
against every journalistic standard, and it is happening --
> usually under the radar."
>
> After a review of the record, however, it is clear that Fox was an
enthusiastic participant in the White House's campaign of
> disinformation leading the country into war. And it was not under the
radar -- it happened in our living rooms every night.
>
> ===============
>
> Regards,
> Robert L Bass
>
> =============================>
> Bass Home Electronics
> 941-925-8650
> 4883 Fallcrest Circle
> Sarasota · Florida · 34233
> http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
> =============================>
>