Meltdown over Fox

[Tigermike 3,040]

EDITORIAL: Meltdown over Fox

Network co-sponsors state Democratic debate -- oh my!

Hard-core liberals can't stand the Fox News Channel. Passing a television that's tuned to the conservative favorite forces many of them to close their eyes, cover their ears and scream, "La la la la la la la la la!" Then they dash to their computers and fire off 2,500 e-mails condemning the outlet, none of which are ever read.

But liberals' aversion to Fox News has finally gone over the top. The Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to let the right-tilting network co-sponsor, of all things, an August debate in Reno between Democratic presidential candidates. Party officials were serious about drawing national attention to the state's January presidential caucus, the country's second in the 2008 nominating process. What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?

But the socialist, Web-addicted wing of the Democratic Party was apoplectic. The prospect of having to watch Fox News to see their own candidates would have been torture in itself. So they set the blogosphere aflame with efforts to kill the broadcast arrangement, or at least have all the candidates pull out of the event. Before Friday, the opportunistic John Edwards was the only candidate to jump on that bandwagon.

You'd think the deal called for having Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter mock the candidates between comments. No, even unfiltered, unedited, live debate between loyal Democrats couldn't be entrusted to Fox News.

The approach of outfits such as MoveOn.org is so juvenile it's laughable. Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago.

This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire.

By Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party caved in to the lunatic fringe and began seeking a more "appropriate" television partner.

Comedy Central, perhaps?

link

[Tiger Al 0]

What a schizo! The constant cry from the right is that there's this so-called 'liberal media bias.' The writer alludes to as much when (s)he says, "Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago," but, then immediately follows with this gem, "This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism."

But, here's the kicker, and actually proves what I've suspected all along, (s)he says, "What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?" Most conservatives don't get information from any other news source but Fox. If they did, they would simply tune in to whatever network was carrying the debate, if it was that important to them. If it's not on Fox they won't watch it! No wonder Fox viewers were found to be the least informed.

[TexasTiger 12,963]

Comedy Central, perhaps?

I like that idea!!! Youth vote!

[Tigermike 3,040]

What a schizo! The constant cry from the right is that there's this so-called 'liberal media bias.' The writer alludes to as much when (s)he says, "Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago," but, then immediately follows with this gem, "This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism."

But, here's the kicker, and actually proves what I've suspected all along, (s)he says, "What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?" Most conservatives don't get information from any other news source but Fox. If they did, they would simply tune in to whatever network was carrying the debate, if it was that important to them. If it's not on Fox they won't watch it! No wonder Fox viewers were found to be the least informed.

No, no, no my little socialist Buddy never paints with the broad brush does he.

And libs are always sooooo open minded aren't they? And never judgmental and never elitists.

Here's the real kicker this little article hit Al, deep to the core.

[Tiger Al 0]

What a schizo! The constant cry from the right is that there's this so-called 'liberal media bias.' The writer alludes to as much when (s)he says, "Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago," but, then immediately follows with this gem, "This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism."

But, here's the kicker, and actually proves what I've suspected all along, (s)he says, "What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?" Most conservatives don't get information from any other news source but Fox. If they did, they would simply tune in to whatever network was carrying the debate, if it was that important to them. If it's not on Fox they won't watch it! No wonder Fox viewers were found to be the least informed.

No, no, no my little socialist Buddy never paints with the broad brush does he.

And libs are always sooooo open minded aren't they? And never judgmental and never elitists.

Here's the real kicker this little article hit Al, deep to the core.

It's a simple matter of connecting the dots that you provided. If nothing else, I pegged the author and you.

BTW, neither the article nor you has what it takes to even approach my core. I'd never give either of you that kind of power.

Now, run along and go watch some Fox. And don't forget the Kool-Aid.

[Tigermike 3,040]

What a schizo! The constant cry from the right is that there's this so-called 'liberal media bias.' The writer alludes to as much when (s)he says, "Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago," but, then immediately follows with this gem, "This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism."

But, here's the kicker, and actually proves what I've suspected all along, (s)he says, "What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?" Most conservatives don't get information from any other news source but Fox. If they did, they would simply tune in to whatever network was carrying the debate, if it was that important to them. If it's not on Fox they won't watch it! No wonder Fox viewers were found to be the least informed.

No, no, no my little socialist Buddy never paints with the broad brush does he.

And libs are always sooooo open minded aren't they? And never judgmental and never elitists.

Here's the real kicker this little article hit Al, deep to the core.

It's a simple matter of connecting the dots that you provided. If nothing else, I pegged the author and you.

BTW, neither the article nor you has what it takes to even approach my core. I'd never give either of you that kind of power.

Now, run along and go watch some Fox. And don't forget the Kool-Aid.

Prideful talk for someone who reneges on bets.

Now run back to moveon and ask what to do next. Or did you stop listening to them when the draft didn't materialize?

[Tiger Al 0]

What a schizo! The constant cry from the right is that there's this so-called 'liberal media bias.' The writer alludes to as much when (s)he says, "Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago," but, then immediately follows with this gem, "This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism."

But, here's the kicker, and actually proves what I've suspected all along, (s)he says, "What better way for the party to reach conservative and "values" voters who might consider changing allegiances?" Most conservatives don't get information from any other news source but Fox. If they did, they would simply tune in to whatever network was carrying the debate, if it was that important to them. If it's not on Fox they won't watch it! No wonder Fox viewers were found to be the least informed.

No, no, no my little socialist Buddy never paints with the broad brush does he.

And libs are always sooooo open minded aren't they? And never judgmental and never elitists.

Here's the real kicker this little article hit Al, deep to the core.

It's a simple matter of connecting the dots that you provided. If nothing else, I pegged the author and you.

BTW, neither the article nor you has what it takes to even approach my core. I'd never give either of you that kind of power.

Now, run along and go watch some Fox. And don't forget the Kool-Aid.

Prideful talk for someone who reneges on bets.

Now run back to moveon and ask what to do next. Or did you stop listening to them when the draft didn't materialize?

Blah, blah, blah...

[DKW 86 7,431]

No wonder Fox viewers were found to be the least informed.

And I know you have a non-partisan link to PROVE this. A scientific study, not an opinion poll.

Link Demanded...

[Ranger12 46]

No wonder Fox viewers were found to be the least informed.

And I know you have a non-partisan link to PROVE this. A scientific study, not an opinion poll.

Link Demanded...

Yeah, all us of that watch Fox News are just brain dead and can't form our own opinions, unlike all you liberals who are so intellectually superior. It is that kind of mentality that the you liberals have that has made Fox News as successful as it is. Heck, you two leading democrat candidates can't even get along right now because of their freakin' huge egos.

Al and TT, you guys think conservatives only watch Fox News? That is why liberals keep underestimating conservatives. The fact of the matter is that most conservatives I know read or watch from various outlets with the most of them being left leaning. We want to know what the other side is saying and thinking. Unlike you liberals who forsake anything that looks conservative, yet you want to call us the most misinformed? Just goes along with the misconception you guys have that all conservatives vote a straight republican ticket. I have not done that for the last several elections.

[Tiger Al 0]

No wonder Fox viewers were found to be the least informed.

And I know you have a non-partisan link to PROVE this. A scientific study, not an opinion poll.

Link Demanded...

LINK

[AURaptor 1,125]

Sorry TA, but the findings of this report have already been debunked, in that the numbers don't reflect the official 'findings' which you claim.

And fyi, this was a study based on what ? Opinion polls.

Nice try.

[AFTiger 282]

I just wish the Republican Party would pay as much attention to its base as the Democrat party does to its lunitic fringe.

[Tiger Al 0]

Sorry TA, but the findings of this report have already been debunked, in that the numbers don't reflect the official 'findings' which you claim.

Debunked by who? I claimed the study showed that Fox viewers were the least informed and the numbers reflect just that.

An analysis of those who were asked all of the key three perception questions does reveal a remarkable level of variation in the presence of misperceptions according to news source. Standing out in the analysis are Fox and NPR/PBS--but for opposite reasons. Fox was the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions. NPR/PBS are notable because their viewers and listeners consistently held fewer misperceptions than respondents who obtained their information from other news sources.

And fyi, this was a study based on what ? Opinion polls.

Nice try.

Exactly how would you find out what people think if you don't ask questions?

[DKW 86 7,431]

Sorry TA, but the findings of this report have already been debunked, in that the numbers don't reflect the official 'findings' which you claim.

Debunked by who? I claimed the study showed that Fox viewers were the least informed and the numbers reflect just that.

An analysis of those who were asked all of the key three perception questions does reveal a remarkable level of variation in the presence of misperceptions according to news source. Standing out in the analysis are Fox and NPR/PBS--but for opposite reasons. Fox was the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions. NPR/PBS are notable because their viewers and listeners consistently held fewer misperceptions than respondents who obtained their information from other news sources.

And fyi, this was a study based on what ? Opinion polls.

Nice try.

Exactly how would you find out what people think if you don't ask questions?

YOU develop a hard fact test and you get it taken by x number of a population that are randomly chosen. You do not take a sampling of OPINIONS on subjects. I asked far a SCIENTIFICALLY PROVABLE link, not a compilation of opinion pieces.

For a misperception of anything, you have to have a baseline solid fact. In otherwords there is no ambiguous answers, no level of certainty, simple "do you know this to be a fact or not?" IE: "Do you know the car is Pantome #00ff66 Blue?" There is no allowance for light blue, navy blue, bluish teal, turquoise or aquamarine. If I ask you whether the war was justified, the actual answer could take say 3 paragraphs to gauge your true understanding. That doesnt fit a survey well.

This piece also fails to account for:

1) those of us that open minds, IE randomly view more than one source.

2) those of us that have more intellectual curiosity to proactively search out more than one news source.

3) those that HAVE to view more than one news source due to travel, access problems.

4) other outside factors such as socio-economic, education, geography, CABLE access, etc.

Al, I could shoot academic holes in that piece of rubbish all day. Might as well call you a "Barner" and go from there. Al, I watch CNN, listen to NPR, and other sources too. I read from 3-5 different news sources a day. Where does my response go?

[Tiger Al 0]

YOU develop a hard fact test and you get it taken by x number of a population that are randomly chosen. You do not take a sampling of OPINIONS on subjects. I asked far a SCIENTIFICALLY PROVABLE link, not a compilation of opinion pieces.

For a misperception of anything, you have to have a baseline solid fact. In otherwords there is no ambiguous answers, no level of certainty, simple "do you know this to be a fact or not?" IE: "Do you know the car is Pantome #00ff66 Blue?" There is no allowance for light blue, navy blue, bluish teal, turquoise or aquamarine. If I ask you whether the war was justified, the actual answer could take say 3 paragraphs to gauge your true understanding. That doesnt fit a survey well.

This piece also fails to account for:

1) those of us that open minds, IE randomly view more than one source.

2) those of us that have more intellectual curiosity to proactively search out more than one news source.

3) those that HAVE to view more than one news source due to travel, access problems.

4) other outside factors such as socio-economic, education, geography, CABLE access, etc.

Al, I could shoot academic holes in that piece of rubbish all day. Might as well call you a "Barner" and go from there. Al, I watch CNN, listen to NPR, and other sources too. I read from 3-5 different news sources a day. Where does my response go?

You haven't even looked at it!!! Oh my God, you're rebutting something you haven't even taken a look at! Amazing. No, actually, it's not.

For a misperception of anything, you have to have a baseline solid fact. In otherwords there is no ambiguous answers, no level of certainty, simple "do you know this to be a fact or not?"

That's exactly how the study was conducted. Had you looked at it you would've known that.

If I ask you whether the war was justified, the actual answer could take say 3 paragraphs to gauge your true understanding. That doesnt fit a survey well.

They obviously thought of that and didn't ask vague questions that would take three paragraphs to answer. Had you looked at it you would've known that.

This piece also fails to account for:

1) those of us that open minds, IE randomly view more than one source.

2) those of us that have more intellectual curiosity to proactively search out more than one news source.

3) those that HAVE to view more than one news source due to travel, access problems.

4) other outside factors such as socio-economic, education, geography, CABLE access, etc.

Numbers 1-3 all come down to the same thing: Multiple sources of information. The study actually has a category of respondents who fall into that demographic, as well as accounting for point number 4. Had you looked at it you would've known that.

Al, I could shoot academic holes in that piece of rubbish all day. Might as well call you a "Barner" and go from there. Al, I watch CNN, listen to NPR, and other sources too. I read from 3-5 different news sources a day. Where does my response go?

No, you shot "academic" holes into the strawman you built. See, that's the beauty of strawmen; You can make them be whatever you want, rip the **** out of them and then pound your chest afterwards.

Please, David, out of simple respect, either look at the study and then comment or skip this thread altogether because you've added nothing of value yet. Be a leader and set the example.

[AURaptor 1,125]

TA, there's no definitive base line answer to exactly how much Iraq had to do w/ 9/11. It may have been 0%. Or, there may have been a few select operatives in the Iraq Gov't who KNEW what was in the works, but had no real attatchment to the plan. So, either way, asking American VIEWERS of their opinions on the issue is utterly pointless. Fact is, we didn't go into Iraq BECAUSE we thought they had anything to do w/ 9/11. 17 U.N. Resolutions are testiment of that alone. There were reasons enough for us to stop placating Iraq w/ extension after extension and resolution after resolution as it was getting us NO WHERE in disarming Saddam. THAT saga had been going on for over a decade.

You don't find it a tiny bit odd that those who were against the war in Iraq, and who watched PBS were deemed 'more informed' than those who were for the war and watched FOX ? Seems a rather specious conclusion to me.

[Tiger Al 0]

TA, there's no definitive base line answer to exactly how much Iraq had to do w/ 9/11. It may have been 0%. Or, there may have been a few select operatives in the Iraq Gov't who KNEW what was in the works, but had no real attatchment to the plan. So, either way, asking American VIEWERS of their opinions on the issue is utterly pointless. Fact is, we didn't go into Iraq BECAUSE we thought they had anything to do w/ 9/11.

This is covered on pages 4-6 of the PDF. Iraq-al Qaeda ties were most certainly presented as reasons to attack Iraq by the administration, there can be no denying that. Respondents were asked a very simple question, “Is it your impression that the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization?”

Asking viewers questions is the best way to find out what impact the media is having on them.

17 U.N. Resolutions are testiment of that alone. There were reasons enough for us to stop placating Iraq w/ extension after extension and resolution after resolution as it was getting us NO WHERE in disarming Saddam. THAT saga had been going on for over a decade.

WMD is another area of misperception that is covered.

You don't find it a tiny bit odd that those who were against the war in Iraq, and who watched PBS were deemed 'more informed' than those who were for the war and watched FOX ? Seems a rather specious conclusion to me.

No, it's not a specious conclusion at all. Support for the war is directly proportional to misperceptions about the war. The respondents who had more misperceptions about the war, especially the three key ones, have been more supportive of it than those who held fewer misperceptions.

The study further breaks down who had the misperceptions by party affiliation, education level, news source, etc. Interestingly, republicans, in general, had a misperception rate of 43%. However, in republicans whose primary source of news was Fox, the number jumped to 54% while republicans whose primary news source was NPR/PBS dropped to 32%.

[AURaptor 1,125]

Iraq-al Qaeda ties were most certainly presented as reasons to attack Iraq by the administration, there can be no denying that.

I completely and utterly reject that notion. Sorry, but that's not what the Administration pushed. No matter what the 'study' claims.

[Tiger Al 0]

Iraq-al Qaeda ties were most certainly presented as reasons to attack Iraq by the administration, there can be no denying that.

I completely and utterly reject that notion. Sorry, but that's not what the Administration pushed. No matter what the 'study' claims.

The study doesn't claim it. It's just a fact.

The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.

LINK

What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.

LINK

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

LINK

We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

LINK

And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

LINK

"MS. RICE: There is plenty to indict Saddam Hussein without a direct link to 9/11. He clearly has links to terrorism. QUESTION: All right. And links to terrorism would include al Qaeda? I just want to be certain. MS. RICE: Links to terrorism would include al Qaeda, yes."

Source: Fox News Sunday, Fox News (9/15/2002).

Is this enough or do you need more?

[TexasTiger 12,963]

Iraq-al Qaeda ties were most certainly presented as reasons to attack Iraq by the administration, there can be no denying that.

I completely and utterly reject that notion. Sorry, but that's not what the Administration pushed. No matter what the 'study' claims.

The study doesn't claim it. It's just a fact.

The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.

LINK

What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.

LINK

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

LINK

We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

LINK

And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

LINK

"MS. RICE: There is plenty to indict Saddam Hussein without a direct link to 9/11. He clearly has links to terrorism. QUESTION: All right. And links to terrorism would include al Qaeda? I just want to be certain. MS. RICE: Links to terrorism would include al Qaeda, yes."

Source: Fox News Sunday, Fox News (9/15/2002).

Is this enough or do you need more?

I'm guessing its not enough.

[Tiger Al 0]

Iraq-al Qaeda ties were most certainly presented as reasons to attack Iraq by the administration, there can be no denying that.

I completely and utterly reject that notion. Sorry, but that's not what the Administration pushed. No matter what the 'study' claims.

The study doesn't claim it. It's just a fact.

The difference, of course, is that al Qaeda likes to hijack governments. Saddam Hussein is a dictator of a government. Al Qaeda hides, Saddam doesn't, but the danger is, is that they work in concert. The danger is, is that al Qaeda becomes an extension of Saddam's madness and his hatred and his capacity to extend weapons of mass destruction around the world.

LINK

What the Vice President said was, is that he has been involved with al Qaeda. And al Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. He's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties.

LINK

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it’s not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t know. You and I talked about this two years ago. I can remember you asking me this question just a few days after the original attack. At the time I said no, we didn’t have any evidence of that. Subsequent to that, we’ve learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the ’90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaeda organization.

LINK

We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

LINK

And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own.

LINK

"MS. RICE: There is plenty to indict Saddam Hussein without a direct link to 9/11. He clearly has links to terrorism. QUESTION: All right. And links to terrorism would include al Qaeda? I just want to be certain. MS. RICE: Links to terrorism would include al Qaeda, yes."

Source: Fox News Sunday, Fox News (9/15/2002).

Is this enough or do you need more?

I'm guessing its not enough.

Did you notice the last one? It's from Fox!!!

[TexasTiger 12,963]

Did you notice the last one? It's from Fox!!!

Don't make his head explode!

[Tiger Al 0]

Did you notice the last one? It's from Fox!!!

Don't make his head explode!

Imagine exploding head emoticon here--------->X

[AURaptor 1,125]

The study doesn't claim it. It's just a fact

Sorry, you are wrong. That is a false piece of information, thus not a 'fact'.

You can post as many examples as you'd like , but they don't prove your case. What I 'need' is for you to get a clue and wake the hell up.

[Tiger Al 0]

The study doesn't claim it. It's just a fact

Sorry, you are wrong. That is a false piece of informatino, thus nto a 'fact'.

You can post as many examples as you'd like , but they don't prove your case. What I 'need' is for you to get a clue and wake the hell up.

In other words, "My mind's already made up regardless of facts to the contrary."