Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (587306)	7/2/2004 4:35:52 PM
From: Srexley	Respond to of 769670

Why don't YOU tell me about a report YOU think is false. You are the one making the claim after all. I don't really like the silly reports from left wing outlets that you post. I read the 1st one, and saw nothing exept inuendos about Fox's anchors and hiring practices. In other words, personal attacks on Fox anchors, or the people who hire Fox anchors. I then got to the 2nd link, and see it's first story is wrong, and FOX was right. Bush never did claim a link between Saddam and 9-11, and there are links between Al Queda and Iraq. The New York Times JUST APOLOGIZED for their inflamatory and INCORRECT headlines about the same thing. I get news from a number of sources, and Fox is pretty accurate. It bugs you guys that they seem to like America, and give news from an American perspective, but that is tough shit for you haters. Pick out something YOU think they have done wrong, and I will comment on it. ""On Fox's Special Report newscast (6/16/04), anchor Brit Hume charged that the media were mischaracterizing the report: "The Associated Press leads off its story on a new 9/11 commission report by saying the document bluntly contradicts the Bush administration by claiming to have no credible evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11 terrorist attacks." Hume maintained that the AP story was inaccurate: "In fact, the Bush administration has never said that such evidence exists."" Fox's perspective ACCURATE.

To: bentway who wrote (587306)	7/2/2004 4:38:15 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

""Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the September 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was 'no credible evidence' that Saddam Hussein had ties with Al Qaeda."" Here is the AP's lead. It is FALSE. And you(or your silly hate mag) mock Fox for pointing it out.

To: bentway who wrote (587306)	7/2/2004 4:47:04 PM
From: DizzyG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Hmmm... This is VERY interesting. So you've provided links to some site that supposedly proves your claim that Fox News is biased. I did a little research based on the links you posted. Specifically this one: fair.org ACTION ALERT: Irresistible Lies: Fox News on White House "Vandalism" May 21, 2001 During the White House transition in January, one story proved irresistible to many conservative pundits: Departing Clinton staffers had gone on a wild rampage and "trashed" or "vandalized" the White House, even looting Air Force One. Allegations of the Clinton aides' reckless destruction of public property swept through the media. For some, the story symbolized the difference between a morally compromised Clinton presidency and a more dignified, honorable Bush administration. An official government investigation, however, reveals one major problem with these stories: They apparently never happened. According to statements from the General Services Administration that were reported on May 17, little if anything out of the ordinary occurred during the transition, and "the condition of the real property was consistent with what we would expect to encounter when tenants vacate office space after an extended occupancy." Too bad for you that I found the final GAO report dated June 7, 2002. On page 22 of this report it states the following: Damage, theft, vandalism, and pranks occurred in the White House complex during the 2001 presidential transition. Incidents such as the removal of keys from computer keyboards; the theft of various items; the leaving of certain voice mail messages, signs, and written messages; and the placing of glue on desk drawers clearly were intentional acts. However,it was unknown whether other observations, such as broken furniture, were the result of intentional acts, when and how they occurred, or who may have been responsible for them. Further, with regard to stolen items, such as the presidential seal, because no one witnessed the thefts and many people were in the White House complex during the transition, it was not known who was responsible for taking them. Moreover, regarding other items reported missing, such as doorknobs, cellular telephones, and television remote controls, it was unknown whether all of them were thefts, and if they were, who was responsible for taking those items and when they were taken. Further complicating our attempt to determine the amount of damage that may have occurred was the lack of documentation directly corroborating some observations and our inability to reconcile certain observations only a few hours apart in locations where some people saw damage, vandalism, or pranks and where others saw none. gao.gov Given this apparent LACK of follow through from your source and your apparent glee with respect to further propagating this LIE, I conclude the following: 1. Your source is bogus 2. Your argument is based on a bogus source. Therfore, I REJECT your argument. Thanks for playing though. We do have some nice parting gifts. Diz-