Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues

Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

I didn't say anything about Fox news!!!

Posted By: me on 2009-03-30
In Reply to: Okay, so only Fox News tells the truth. I see where you're coming from. nm - fair and balanced LOL

Where do you come up with such myths. Show me one thing in my post that said Fox news. I didn't say it. My words were...

"There is another site with better sources and it is called truth or fiction." I also said "Research for yourself with many other links out there."

I didn't say anything about Fox!!!!!!!!!!!

Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

???? Um. News flash. Hillary didn't win - - - nm
Right....like the news media didn't fall all over themselves trying to get first in line...you ne

You didn't read the AP news story on Ogden?
I posted it below in a post yesterday.
FOX news IS the news. The only 1 that tells BOTH
It's all over the news - and I mean ALL news stations.
not just the ones you don't like.

I didn't miss any part and didn't say...
anything either way. I just posted a link.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't

his own personal reasons.


The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.

Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.

In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"

Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.

Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.

Conversations With Bush The Candidate

Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.

The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.

I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."

Debating The Timeline For War

But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.

The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.

On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.

Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.

Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"

Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."

Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.

Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.


Do you get any news except at the DU? ????? NM

Believe it or not, I do keep up with the news.
I realize this is an old story, but it has a new twist to it because now Gary Bernsten is now giving the specifics surrounding it.
When the news first came out that he was..sm
hosting a fundraiser for her I thought it was weird, but now that you bring it up (and it's a good question) I did some research and it appears that old Ruppert has a history of switching his backing between parties. Some believe his main objective is monopoly in broadcasting, not party loyalty or belief in party ideals (aka Big Business 102).

Excerpt from wsws.org: 'When it comes to politics, Murdoch, known in media circles as the “dirty digger,” is equally adaptable in pursuing his personal gain. The most loyal right-wing Tory and friend of Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s, as he built up his media holdings in Britain, he switched his loyalties to “New Labour” when he saw that Tony Blair could provide a fresh face for even more reactionary politics and was more than willing to further Murdoch’s interests in return for editorial backing. He made similar swings in his native Australia between the Labor and Liberal parties to further his efforts at monopolizing the print and broadcast media.'
Actually, I saw it on ABC News....
the footage of Obama not putting hand over heart for pledge. In all fairness, that is the only footage I have seen of him not doing so....never was a recipient of whatever chain email you are speaking of. Believe it...yes, saw it with my own eyes. Why he did it, have no idea. There could be a multitude of reasons why he didn't do it. Here is the big BUT...it does make one a but curious when coupled with the fact that he dispensed with wearing of the flag pin on his lapel. I heard his explanation; I am just not sure I buy it. Each thing alone not such a big deal...together, it does make one wonder, so I can see why nanna might have reservations. It is good to question things and not take everything at face value...be the candidate Dem, Repub, Inde...whatever.
Fox news

A propanganda machine for repubs.  No one is obligated to appear on that network.  There are plenty of other media outlets. Fox's ratings are dropping and MSNC's are climbing.  Fox disguises these facts by including their entertainment ratings in with their "news" ratings.  As far as ALL OTHER MEDIA being liberal, that is a transparent technique to keep viewers from getting opinions from ANY OTHER source than Fox.  I certainly wouldn't fall for that bunko.  I also notice that they concentrate on certain sites such as Media Matters and NY Times specifically because those sites are excellent at presenting the truth about distorted information disseminated by the propaganda machine. To each his own.



Where do you get your news?

Sorry, I'm conservative, but have to ask why you would go down that road when you can find those answers yourself.

Might I suggest worldnetdaily.com, townhall.com, drudgereport.com, breitbart.com, talk radio (and the hosts' web sites, including Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Savage, Levin, Michelle Malkin, Rush, etc.).  There are countless news stories that never make the mainstream media.

Another thing to consider is who a person keeps for company.  When questionable names keep coming up (Pflager, Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, etc.), that would concern me if I were considering any kind of relationship with someone, but that's just me.

Those who support Obama get their news from MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and so on.  Those networks alone have been proven repeatedly to be biased.  All the times that McCain went abroad, where were Couric, Gibson, and Williams?  Why would any American think that the Democrats, who are determined to reinstate Fairness Doctrine, think that it won't come back and bite them?  Why should any American be silenced just because one group disagrees with another?

Do you know what is posted on blogs like the DailyKos and HuffingtonPost? 

Lastly, a couple more stats.  The #1 most liberal Senator is Obama.  Kennedy is #2, Biden is #3.  Even the moderate Democrats are distancing themselves from him.  This info is documented and not fiction.

That's rather left of left, I would say.

I'm already looking for my fire extinguisher, but the truth hurts sometimes.

Trust your own gut.

She knows it because it was all over the news

You have more options now than anytime in history to gather information.  You can gather information from both sides of the issue and verify the facts and then make your own decision based on your personal values.


Old news....nm
Fox News is the only one I DO believe.
SP on ABC News
Just saw first installment of interview with SP with Charlie Gibson.  In my opinion, she really messed that up!  Experienced and ready to lead?  No way.  Danced around every question and flat out lied when asked what she said about Iraq War being a mission from God.  What's the worst thing about listening to her for the first time in her own words, she says NUCULAR!!!  Just like George Bush.  Oh no...not again. 
SP on ABC News
She was so nervous, she had big red blotches on the side of her neck. He pressed on dancing around and not answering the questions he asked. She looked like a deer in the headlights to me.
old news....ho hum.. nm
NBC news...
old news
This happened years ago, not yesterday. How come you are just hearing about it? Did you check your dates in snopes?
Maybe old news, but why does no one get it? sm
do you just want to ignore all the blatant truths about Obama being linked to terrorists and cling to hope that he is not REALLY a terrorist and hope that he really will do what he says? So just blindly accept him at his word and ignore all the indications that tell us otherwise. Do you not see any huge red flags waving in front of your eyes??
Fox NEWS is not the news
Joe the plumber is a plant! All your info is wrong.
Fox News
Plenty has been said about Sarah Palin's appearance, from her designer glasses to her striking similarity to actress Tina Fey.

But lately her stylish look has come at a price -- more than $150,000 of which was paid for by the Republican National Committee -- according to a report Tuesday by Politico.

The Web site cited financial disclosure records that suggest the wardrobe makeover began in September and included bills from Sak's Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York totaling nearly $50,000.

The documents also show a $75,000 shopping trip at Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis in September, as well as about $4,700 spent on hair and makeup, Politico reported. Documents don't show similar costs in August.

fox news
Good Evening,


1.  On Sunday night at 9 on Fox News, Hannity's America will run "The Ten Reasons Why Barack Obama Should Not Be President."  Please spread the word.


2.  The article that follows is about Sarah Palin and the elites (both Democrat and Republican).  It is well worth the read:


And this is news how?????
HA HA HA HA HA. I never trusted her. I just hope I see as less of Dillary than I do of Condi.
It's news because...(sm)

Israel is getting ready to invade Gaza and is already in the process of bombing raids.  Meanwhile the current US administration (aka Bush/Condi/Cheney/etc) is perpetuating the lies about Gaza, such as who is the real terrorist, ignoring a legitimate democratically elected council, etc.  The OP explains all this.  Bottom line is that the US is giving Israel a green light, which to some of us (as well as a large portion of the world) is condoning genocide. 

And Americans wonder why the rest of the world has such a bad opinion of us. 

Old news.......
I posted the entire article on how Obama wants to pay for abortions in Ethiopia and abroad with MY money but instead of responses of "NOT MY MONEY", all I got was criticism for being AGAINST abortion......

Go figure..... that's what I mean when I say this country has lost its loyalty to itself and we have a president who has absoluely no loyalty to this country; his loyalties lie elsewhere
I saw it on the news. It is to try
this stimulus. Also that is why Obama had townhall meetings to show congress "We the people" want this stimulus to pass.

Boy, Obama sure loves campaigning and speeches.

Old news - nm


I would think Fox News would be enough
Unless, of course, you have built up your tolerance for it by listening to Michael Savage.
The ones that have been all over the news -
As far as what is said on the news....(sm)

I'm not responsible for that.  Having said that though I do think that as a whole people are more tolerant (I wouldn't go so far as to say accepting).  However, that doesn't diminish the fact that violence against homosexuals is still a prevalent crime.

I actually do wish more people would teach their children as you described above.  If that were happening, none of this would be an issue and there would be no need to take it to the schools. 

Let's take Patty, for example.  She has already said that yes, she does call homosexuals names in front of her kids.  She does this at the same time that she's spouting out references to the Bible.  So what do you think her kids think?  Maybe that it's God's will that they call homosexuals names?  I don't know what they're supposed to think or how they are supposed to act given her example.  Do you think she's teaching tolerance?  If not, who will if not the schools?

Anybody else see this on the news?
The taxpayers just footed the bill for Pres and Michelle Obama's $20,000 date this weekend in New York. Yeah, won't we ALL be making sacrifices - all of us to pay for them? Boils my blood to see any one in politics spending public money on such foolishness and so excessively.
Just saw that on the news also.
You might want to re-evaluate where you get your news..

wednesday, june 29, 2005

Army Exceeds Recruitment Goals

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers announced tonight that the Army has exceeded its recruitment goals for the month of June: Army reverses series of recruitment shortfalls. (Hat tip: Ethel.)

PENTAGON—After months of declining enlistment, the Army has more than met its recruitment goals for the month of June.

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Richard Myers announced the turnaround during a “town hall” meeting this afternoon at the Pentagon.

Myers did not provide numbers, nor did he indicate how far above the recruitment target the enlistment number is.

Rover is old news?

The investigation is still happening.  How can it be old news?

the are a NEWS channel

it's kinda to pre-record live news coverage.  Probably nothing major will happen today, but who knows?  Your scraping the bottom by criticizing a live news channel for having live coverage.


You must get your news off a different satellite than me
because all I hear from the major networks is criticism of Bush and his policies. Some are worse than others I'll admit.
Maybe Fox News is #1 for a reason
Could it be that Americans are more conservative than liberal?  I mean, I doubt liberal Americans are tuning in to Fox for shock value.  I personally believe Fox News is pretty balanced.  Yes, it may lean more conservative, but they always equal out their guests on many of the shows such as Neil Cavuto, Shepherd Smith, Hannity and Colmes.  There is balance there.  Maybe conservative guests come off as getting more air because they are better debators and not always spouting talking points like the liberals do.  If one liberal says some phrase at 8:00 in the morning on the Today Show in reply to a topic then you could almost bet that Democratic pundits will spout the same line the rest of the day.  I've even heard talk show hosts do montages of multiple Democratic pundits within a 24-hour period, and it's scary how they all say the exact same thing.  If you remember Pee-Wee's Playhouse where he had a word of the day.  Democrats seem to have a word of the day too.  I'm not saying that  Republicans don't do that too at times, but it seems much more prevalent with Democrats.
I saw that being advertised on Fox News...nm

News Flash. sm

Using the term living in ignorance is not calling a name.  If you are that sensitive, political boards are not for you.

This is old news...and yet the Democrats in...
congress voted to give the President the use of force in Iraq. They knew all this then. But they voted to use force. So I do not understand why it is being brought up again now like it was some big secret. Yes, 20 years ago the US did try to deal with Saddam. And you saw what his word was worth. Zip, nada, nothing. Much like the word of the Democratic Congress that sold South Viet Nam down the river to the North...broke the promises that were made to end the war. If you want to point fingers at something dispicable that should be HIGH on your list.
I don't watch TV. Especially the TV news. Never have. nm
That is encouraging news.....
I hear the same thing here in Colorado, and I am surrounded by military bases. In fact, they just sentenced a soldier from here the other day for refusing to go on a second tour.
Wonderful news
So glad your husband is home. I know you must be thrilled. My brother-in-law came home right before Christmas to 4 kiddos and my sister who missed him terribly. He was in Kuwait years ago and just finished his second tour in Iraq. I think he is retiring soon.

However, he doesn't support the war and now votes (mostly) democrat. I think he and my sis are fighting beween Obama and Hillary :-)
Actually, I got it off the CBS News site....
Apparently, THEY got it off Politico. CBS is HARDLY a right wing news source. And there were no caveats on their site. Yes, Murtha has added some caveats, as I knew he would, but the fact remains, he said it.

Thanks for jumping in and being so judgmental, Taiga. Par for the course.
come on..have you been watching the news?
to vote for Obama just because Hillary won. This is just one more reason for them to vote for her. Ignorant voters in large numbers are dangerous, just look at what the last 8 years has gotten us...
That is if you can believe everything you read on the news.
The media that backs Barack will put a negative spin on the choice and the media that backs McCain will put a positive spin on it. Honestly, I wouldn't make any decisions based on anything I've read or heard in the news. It's so one-sided these days it's ridiculous. Truly hard to find unbiased journalism anymore.
I also heard that on the news, that there
are more people going there to possibly dig up more dirt on her. I think that she will drop out soon.