Name one specific example of FOX propaganda... anyone?

Question

Not Vicente Fox, Fox News.

To clarify, I see a lot of FOX news bashing and very few specific examples of actual propoganda.

Answer 1

How about the pamphlet he had published for his citizens on how to cross the border?

Answer 2

I can think of one example, because I don't watch it much. When FOX announced the FBI or NSA or CIA or whoever captured terrorist that were planning an attack on Liberty tower in LA, FOX showed a clip from "Independence Day" where the aliens blow up the tower. I thought it was funny. "Here's what it would look like, if they blew it up."
I'm conservative and even I think FOX is biased. But then I think some other news are biased toward liberals and take everything with a grain of salt.
Example, one "news" channel kept referring to the Muslim riots because of the cartoon as "demonstrations". When they showed video, I'd have to say they were riots.
Now propaganda, in the strictest sense, hmm?

Answer 3

In one of those wonderful oddities of history; "President Bush was may well have gone far beyond the guidelines under which the Supreme Court upheld the Roosevelt tribunal that " the order as it now stand's is illegiitimate,wroteCATO Institute scholar,Robert Levy,"He added with a dig at Mr.Ashcroft."Those of us who say so are not,in the attorney general's unfortunate and offensive words'giving ammunition to America's enemies."Roosevelt's use of a military tribunal to try Nazi saboteurs captured in America's enemies.To safeguard our border;defendent's who FOX included as news material,involved a homeowner (Texas) being sued,by a family who came across his property line,detained by officials,only to have a judge award punitive damages to the "guest workers",but FOX was on the scene to get the debacle exibited to the community (viewers),truth is no one could manage to make any sense of a judge awarding a foreign litigant financial compensation to begin with,taking the issue of future follow-up features lacking in popularity no news ,only the poor ridiculas defendent's firstcast interview,that ,at the time justified community interest in a dust-up involving a homeowners growing hospitality toward's our neighboors from Mexico.

Answer 4

How about their one sided coverage of the Bush and Company. They are so pro Bush they cannot be "fair and balanced."

example from the Fox News/Opinion webpage:
U.S. Must Continue Mission of Promoting Democracy

"The State Department recently issued a 272-page document, “Supporting Human Rights and Democracy: The U.S. Record 2005-2006.” It details U.S. efforts in 95 countries around the world where the United States spent a total of $1.4 billion during fiscal year 2005 promoting democracy and human rights."

Yet this opinion gives no mention to the U.S.'s prisoner in Guantanamo Bay and our acts of anti - Human Rights.

Answer 5

www.tranceaddict.com/forums/showthread/t-167817.html
Here is a whole web site dedicated to the issue. You non-educated homoerotic fudge packer.

Answer 6

look you dips#%t turn off your tv if you dont like whats on DEEdaDEE

Answer 7

the simple life...nuff said

Answer 8

Thursday, November 20, 6 PM
Masonic Auditorium, California and Taylor Streets, San Francisco*

Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly, king of misinformation, propagandist for the Bush administration, cheerleader for war and occupation, is coming to San Francisco! Let's give him a San Francisco welcome and ask him for an apology: O'Reilly said he would apologize to the nation and never trust the Bush administration again if weapons of mass destruction were not found in Iraq.** Why has O'Reilly not apologized yet? Perhaps it's because people who watch Fox News have been led to believe that weapons of mass destruction have been found. 80% of people whose primary news source is Fox News believe at least one of the following misperceptions: weapons of mass destruction
have been found in Iraq; Saddam Hussein was directly linked to the 9/11 attacks; world public opinion supported the U.S. attack on Iraq. (University of Maryland Program on International Policy poll of 3,334, Oct. 2, 2003)

TAKE ACTION! Protest Fox News' misleading coverage of the war against Iraq and demand that Bill O'Reilly keep his promise to "apologize to the nation" and to declare that he will "not trust the Bush Administration again".

Weapons-Grade Plutonium Possibly Found at Iraqi Nuke Complex
Friday, April 11, 2003

BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.S. Marines may have found weapons-grade plutonium in a massive underground facility discovered beneath Iraq's Al Tuwaitha nuclear complex, Fox News confirmed Friday.

Coalition forces are investigating a stash of radioactive material found at the site south of Baghdad, an embedded reporter, Carl Prine of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, first told Fox News on Thursday.

U.S. defense officials on Friday confirmed that preliminary field tests did in fact indicate the material could be plutonium." FOX

The Fox News network's Bill O'Reilly told viewers he was now sceptical about the US president's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"I was wrong," said Mr O'Reilly, adding "all Americans should be concerned" that no such weapons had been found.

President George W Bush led the US to war in Iraq, claiming its arsenal of illegal weapons posed a threat.


However, since the war, successive teams of investigators have been unable to find any evidence that Iraq possessed these weapons of mass destruction.

What do you want me to do? Go over and kiss the camera?

Bill O'Reilly apologises on TV

David Kay, the US official appointed by President Bush to lead the search for Iraq's weapons, resigned last month, complaining that the intelligence that led to the war was mistaken.

Under growing pressure from his critics, President Bush has announced an inquiry into apparent pre-war intelligence failures.

Pre-war promise

Mr O'Reilly did not criticise the president, but instead indicated the blame lay with American's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

"I think every American should be very concerned for themselves that our intelligence is not as good as it should be," he said. "I don't know why [CIA director] Tenet still has his job."

Mr O'Reilly made his statement on ABC television, the US rival to Fox News, keeping a promise he made before the war to publicly apologise if no banned weapons were found in Iraq.

Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:59 AM
Subject: FLORIDA COURT RULING SAYS MEDIA CAN LEGALLY LIE


** FLORIDA COURT RULING SAYS MEDIA CAN LEGALLY LIE **

On February 14, a Florida Appeals Court ruled that there is absolutely nothing illegal in a major media organisation lying, concealing or distorting information. The
court reversed the US$425,000 jury verdict of 2000 that was in favour of journalist Jane Akre, who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and
lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

On August 18, 2000, a six?person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what
jurors decided was "a false, distorted or slanted" story about the widespread use of Monsanto's rBGH, a genetically engineered growth hormone given to dairy
cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the
truth in court as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there there is no hard,
fast and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued that the First Amendment
gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

The Court of Appeals, in its six?page written decision, held that the Federal Communications Commission's position against news distortion is only a "policy", not a
promulgated law, rule or regulation.

Fox aired a report after the ruling was handed down, saying that it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

(Source: Sierra Times, March 1, 2003, http://www.sierratimes.com/O3/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm; also see the website http://www.foxBGHsuit.com)

By Robert B. Reich
Issue Date: 03.05.05

Print Friendly | Email Article

When I appeared on FOX News’ The Big Story on February 4, anchor John Gibson asserted that Franklin D. Roosevelt anticipated George W. Bush’s privatization plan, quoting FDR as saying in 1935 that Social Security “ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.” I told Gibson that FDR couldn’t have been referring to private accounts; he must have been talking about separate accounts of a sort we have today. Frances Perkins, FDR’s labor secretary (we used to call her Saint Frances around the department), designed the system to be self-supporting. Each generation of workers would support the previous generation of retirees, forever.

But where had that Roosevelt quote come from? When I got back to my office, I checked. I found it in FDR’s address to Congress on January 17, 1935. The question was how to pay for the Social Security benefits of those who were then too old to contribute payroll taxes and thereby qualify. Roosevelt proposed that the state and federal governments pick up the tab until the system was fully up and running. At that point, the government contributions would be “supplanted” by a “self-supporting” Social Security system. Here’s the quote in full:

In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, non-contributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities, which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.
The voluntary contribution annuities FDR proposed for future generations eventually became IRAs and Keogh plans. But nowhere did FDR ever propose diverting part of the payroll tax to finance private accounts at the expense of Social Security. FOX gave Roosevelt’s words an entirely different spin -- in support of Bush’s privatization plan.
Maybe it was just an honest mistake, I thought. Some lowly researcher at FOX had skimmed through FDR’s speeches and didn’t understand what he was really saying. But a Google check revealed the same “mistake” in a FOX News broadcast by Washington managing editor Brit Hume the day before. And John Fund repeated it on February 4 in a Wall Street Journal online column, before Gibson used it on me.

Of course, sometimes in the rush to get a story out, reporters and commentators parrot what they’ve heard others say without checking the truth of the original. So I phoned FOX to correct the record. A valiant watchdog group called Media Matters for America posted the FOX distortion on its Web site. Air America, the liberal radio network, criticized FOX about it.

At this point, any halfway self-respecting news organization would have publicly admitted error, or at least stopped airing the distortion. But a full five days later, on the February 9 edition of FOX News Live, anchor David Asman used the quote again. To add insult to personal injury, Asman used a news clip of me disagreeing with Gibson as an excuse to repeat FOX’s distortion.

This is just one example of how the Republican propaganda machine is lying to the American people about Bush’s plan for Social Security, just as it has lied about so much else. FOX News’ many distortions are mirrored on other yell-television cable networks, on right-wing radio, and on the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal. It’s a formidable machine. The American Prospect, Media Matters, Air America, and others who are trying to set the record straight are peanuts by comparison.

If Americans get the facts about Bush’s plan, they will reject it out of hand. In fact, there’s no Social Security crisis. In fact, privatization would divert money out of Social Security and create a crisis. In fact, it would drive up the deficit by trillions of dollars. In fact, it would deprive future Social Security recipients of a large chunk of their benefits. (And, of course, FDR intended no such thing.)

These are the facts. But the nation continues to experience one of the gravest dangers to democracy it has ever endured, in the form of relentless and coordinated campaigns of distortion waged under the leadership of this White House. Let’s hope the American people get the truth.

Robert B. Reich is cofounder of The American Prospect.

© 2006 by The American Prospect, Inc.

Sunday Dec. 14:
The Saddamathon begins. A David Lee Miller report runs several times throughout the day purporting to be a history of Saddam's rise and rule over Iraq. It's as if Hussein came out of nowhere to brutalize Iraqis. [The effective lies by omission make the "report" surreal. On the "Fair and Balanced" Fox, Miller inexplicably forgets to mention the extensive U.S. involvement in effectively creating and sustaining the Hussein monster: no mention of the U.S.-aided assassination of Abdul Karem Kassim and rise of the Baathists in March 1963 (also the U.S.-aided putsch of '68 – a great help to Saddam), no mention of Reagan-administration support for Hussein (including ingredients for biological and chemical weapons) during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, no mention of former Hussein buddy Don Rumsfeld's December 19, 1983 (see video at link) and March 24, 1984 visits to Baghdad (the latter visit being on the very same day as press reports that a U.N. team found that Iraqi forces had used mustard gas laced with a nerve agent on Iranian soldiers).

There are constant references on Fox to Hussein "gassing his own people" but no mention of Stephen Pelletiere's gutting of that tale. Also no mention of Assistant Secretary of State John Kelly and U.S. ambassador April Glaspie effectively giving Saddam the green light (as Saddam apparently saw it) for his August 1990 invasion of Kuwait. No mention of the slaughter of more than 100,000 Shiites that occurred when the U.S. encouraged their rebellion and then failed to support it. No mention of the estimated half million deaths from U.S.-supported sanctions. All these topics are of course verboten on "Fair and Balanced" Fox.]

The O'Reilly Factor (7:00 p.m. CT). O'Reilly's first guest is Marc Ginsburg, presented not only on O'Reilly's show but numerous times on Fox's Special Report with Brit Hume as an objective Middle-East analyst. [Ginsburg – like the "impartial" Dennis Ross, Frank Gaffney, and Cliff May – is of course a neocon shill every bit as much as Fox contributors Kristol, Barnes, and Krauthammer. Sometimes Special Report's All-Star panel is a stomach-retching neocon sandwich: Krauthammer, Barnes, and Kristol bread with quasi-neocon Kondracke or Sammon baloney filler laughably included for "balance."]

Next is O'Reilly's in-your-face trumpeting of a weekend report by the appropriately named Con Coughlin of the London Telegraph supposedly uncovering a direct link between Saddam and Osama bin Laden. The report centers around a "top-secret memo" found by the U.S.-appointed government of Iraq asserting that Mohammed Atta was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal in the summer of 2001 just before the September 11 attacks.

Convenient for the Bush administration is that the memo was allegedly written by the former head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam, however the memo suggests that there really was a shipment of uranium from Niger to Iraq after all. Further, the Niger shipment would never have been accomplished without a "secret meeting" between Saddam and (how convenient!!) current neocon bogeyman Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. (You can almost hear Perle cursing in the background about the "stupid ragheads" on Washington's payroll who manufactured the memo but forgot that the White House conceded there was no shipment!)

[Update 12/17/03: Newsweek's Isikoff and Hosenball have labeled the memo a probable fake, and report that the memo is "contradicted by a wealth of information that has been collected about Atta's movements." Despite this news, Bill O'Reilly tonight once again refers to the Coughlin report on his show.]

[Update 12/18/03: California Republican Congressman David Drier on Hannity and Colmes twice cites the Telegraph article based on the fraudulent memo as evidence for a Saddam-al Qaeda link. Hannity also briefly adduced the fraud toward the beginning of his show.]

[Recall Con artist Coughlin's visit to Fox in late April to trumpet the Telegraph's Inigo Gilmore report claiming to find "the first proof of direct links" between Saddam and bin Laden. We were to believe that Gilmore just "sweet talked" his way past the 3rd Infantry into the Mukbaharat to somehow find documents sitting out in the open that the CIA just happened to miss. Because it followed so closely on the heels of other false reports, few gave any credence to the article. Interesting also for Con Man has been his recent work attempting to bolster Tony "Bliar's" notorious and laughable 45-minute claim.

With regard to the neocon obsession with finding a link between Saddam and 9-11/al Qaeda, recall also Fox's role in mid-November of playing up Stephen Hayes' article in the Weekly Standard "Case Closed," which supposedly provided proof of not just a link but a long-standing "operational relationship" between Saddam and bin Laden. The article wasn't much more than a collection of assertions from raw intelligence data. Fox presented the article's contents as fact all day on November 15, the same day as a DOD statement which labeled such reporting "inaccurate." Fox still presented the article's assertions as fact for another two days!]

Monday Dec. 15:
Fox and Friends. Fox Business analyst Neil Cavuto predicts a market rally from the Saddam capture. [The know-nothing Cavuto, who sometimes seems like he can't tell preferred stock from livestock, is wrong as securities markets from NYSE (down 0.39%) to AMEX (down 0.59%) to NASDAQ (down 1.58%) all close down for the day. Even the Wilshire 5000 is down 0.76%. Yeah, I'd say the markets were impressed with the capture, Neil.]

It's Joe Lieberman Day at Fox, as footage of his comment that if Howard Dean had his way, Saddam would still be in power is running almost as much as the footage (running practically every ten minutes) of the latex-gloved guy searching Saddam's hair and mouth for insurgent cooties. [Fox really has their sites set on Dean. The constant playing and replaying of the latex-gloved guy frisking the mangy Saddam becomes so annoying I have to turn off Fox for the day. Judging by reports about Fox e-mail, even many of the network's fans are annoyed.]

Tuesday Dec. 16:
Your World with Neil Cavuto. Midway through the show (3:31 p.m. CT) Cavuto refers to the day's stock-market performance as the Saddam Rally. [I guess the Saddam Rally could have come next February if the market's next rise hadn't been until then.]

Cavuto (3:49 p.m. CT) gives the frothing pro-war president of the Catholic League, William Donohue, a platform to bash Cardinal Renato Martino. Donohue says Martino only represents "the total fringe" in the Catholic church. He claims that Catholics the world over were in favor of the war. [Anti-war Catholics?! Why there's almost no such thing!]

Special Report with Brit Hume (5:00 p.m. CT). A report by Bret Baier on how the capture of Saddam with documents has yielded all sorts of supposed benefits in terms of fighting the insurgency network. [Fox journalists appear bent on showing immediate benefits, no matter how vague or assertive, of Saddam's capture.] Reporter Mike Emanuel repeats the tired lie that the U.S. killed 54 guerrillas in Samarra. [Nine dead civilians is apparently the real story.] Footage is aired of Don Rumsfeld claiming that Saddam's spider hole could hold WMD that could kill scores of people. [Maybe true, but the misleading implication Rumsfeld and (at times) Fox are trying to advance is that the WMD jackpot, like Saddam, can be found with enough searching.]

The O'Reilly Factor (7:00 p.m. CT). [This was the most unbelievable episode I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot.] In his opening monologue O'Reilly rips into Cardinal Martino, but (unlike Hannity later in the night) charitably quotes him: "I felt pity to see this man destroyed. The military looking at his teeth, as if he were a beast. They could have spared us these pictures. Seeing him like this, a man in his tragedy, despite all the heavy blame he bears, I had a sense of compassion for him." [Hannity removed the words in bold italics.]

O'REILLY [Talking Points Memo]: The problem with the Vatican and the UN and others who have no solution to fascism, terror, atrocities, and mass murder is that they live in a dream world and they are afforded that luxury by America, Britain, and other free nations who stood up to the Nazis, communists, Japanese imperialists, and now the terrorists. Cardinal Martino and Kofi Annan may be well intentioned but they are not looking out for us. And we are the only thing standing between them and a bullet to the head.

[The Vatican has no solution, lives in a dream world, and would get a bullet to the head without the U.S.A.? O'Reilly next debates Father Ryscavage, a Jesuit priest over the appropriateness of the humiliating footage of Hussein.]

O'REILLY: Father, I don't get it here. I think that God actually orchestrated this [the capture of Hussein], this is how religious I am...you would censor that image?
RYSCAVAGE: I would censor the image of him being humiliated in public.
O'REILLY: I would have no problem brutalizing this man to protect others, to find out what he knows. I would not believe that would be sinful, Father.
RYSCAVAGE: The Church provides a moral framework for decisions, it doesn't tell you what you have to decide.
O'REILLY: Martino has been rabidly anti-American in this whole campaign, in the beginning the Pontiff and this cardinal declared the war immoral. I thought that declaration was immoral because of all the people who have been killed by Saddam.

[Update 12/23: Recent reports have the Kurds orchestrating the capture of Hussein. Fox has yet to mention these even to deny them.]

[Next came one of the most shocking exchanges, marking a new level of overt depravity even for Fox.]

O'REILLY: Let me ask you about Jesus in the temple, driving the money changers out with a whip. Was he affording those people dignity, Father?
RYSCAVAGE: He was protecting the dignity of the temple, the people who prayed in it and the merchants who worked in it.
O'REILLY: That's exactly what President Bush and the U.S.A. was [sic] doing when they went in to remove Saddam. They were protecting the dignity of the Iraqi people and they were protecting the dignity of the world so we wouldn't have to deal with a guy who clearly was out to hurt people...So we were doing exactly what Jesus did in the temple, weren't we?
FATHER RYSCAVAGE: No, I don't think so.

[There you have it! George W. Bush and the U.S.A. "exactly" as Jesus in the temple. This from the No Spin Zone.]

Hannity and Colmes (8:00 p.m. CT). Torture Saddam Day on H&C, with Bill Bennett and Sean Hannity enthusiastic interlocutors on the subject.
BENNETT: ...if it's the only means necessary to get information out of him which will save other people...then yes I would do it...I would not be reluctant to use fairly strong pressure.
COLMES: What do you mean?
BENNETT: The standard things people do. Sodium pentathol, needles under the finger nails...I would do it publicly, admit I was doing it, and say why I was doing it.

Hannity quotes Cardinal Martino, careful to doctor the quote (especially on screen) to remove Martino's statement about Hussein bearing blame for his predicament:
HANNITY [verbatim as if quoting Martino]: "I feel pity at seeing this destroyed man treated like a cow, having his teeth checked. I have seen this man in his tragedy. I have a sense of compassion." That's fine but where has he [Martino] been for the compassion [sic] of all the people that have been murdered all these years? I find this embarrassing as a Catholic.
BENNETT: ...the Vatican has missed some things in the last couple years, they've missed the moral significance of some things going on in their own church and they've missed the moral significance of this war.

[Of course there's no moral significance in a soi disant virtue czar gambling away half a million dollars at the Bellagio in one weekend while there are children starving in Iraq. Oh, that's right, Bennett quit his lavish gambling for some reason.]

Wednesday December 17
Fox and Friends (5:00 a.m. CT). More denouncing of the Pope for being anti-war. Host Brian Kilmeade celebrates the U.S.-appointed Iraq foreign minister's condemnation of the UN for hindering the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. [As if there's any significance to what a U.S. puppet minister thinks.] Then (7:10 CT) Kilmeade tells the Fox audience that what's so neat about Hussein being handed over to the CIA is that although they can't torture him, they can deprive him of sleep, food, and light as well as blast him with unpleasant music. [Kilmeade is a hilarious and psittacine disaster who shows what happens when a sports reporter crosses over to serious news analysis.]

Host Steve Doocy proudly shows the audience photos of his family socially cavorting with Don Rumsfeld and White House staff member Bradley Blakeman. [Now try to imagine how conservatives, Republicans, and latex-gloved friskers would have greeted say, CNN, for having a morning show with hosts that cheered the Clintons, openly showed themselves socially cavorting with their staff, while CNN claimed to be "Fair and Balanced."]

O'Reilly Factor (7:00 p.m. CT). O'Reilly's opening monologue is entitled "The Death of Shame in America." He cites "dishonest news analysis" as a symptom of the death of shame. [No irony there! His first guest is this odd ex-CIA guy who keeps referring to Hussein over and over as "the hard drive:" "We will not take a sledge hammer to the hard drive."]

O'REILLY: What about sodium pentathol, mind altering drugs, chemicals, things like that?
SIMMONS: Fair game, absolutely fair game.
[There are U.S. officials – especially ex-CIA types like the guest – who have almost, if not as much, information as Hussein has, since he was their on-again, off-again employee. Will they be tortured as well?]

(7:15 p.m. CT) O'Reilly tells Jessica Stern from Harvard's Kennedy School that Syria and Iran should be nervous if they've hidden Saddam's WMD. [Fox bashes Madeleine Albright for her nutty conspiracy theory that Bush has bin Laden hidden away, yet they employ a grown man who thinks it plausible that Syria or Iran has Saddam's non-existent WMD.]

O'Reilly (7:38 p.m. CT) is enraged that Drudge exposed his Today show lie that his new book is rivaling Hillary Clinton's in sales. [O'Reilly's book sales aren't even half of Clinton's and are quite a bit below those of his arch-enemy Al Franken. By the way, Matt, O'Reilly repeated the same lie on his own show on Monday.] O'Reilly states that "you can't believe a thing Matt Drudge says" yet doesn't correct Drudge and calls Internet journalism "a threat to democracy."

[Recall O'Reilly suggesting on June 16 of this year that the Internet should be federally regulated to prevent falsehoods from being told! Apparently the big government-media establishment is the only entity that should be able to lie with impunity. O'Reilly's two guests, Liz Trotta and Quentin Hardy of Forbes, start fighting over whether Internet free speech should be shut down because, God forbid, it's allowing citizen journalists to have their say and that, according to Trotta, has made the Internet "a garbage dump."]

HARDY: Are you telling me you want to shut down the Internet and keep people from finding out information?
TROTTA: No, I want to keep it responsible and safe for democracy instead of a garbage can for people's ridiculous fantasies.
O'REILLY: Shouldn't there be some standards of behavior, some kind of standard?
TROTTA: Exactly.
HARDY: I believe the viewers can judge for themselves.
O'REILLY: Do you?

Hannity and Colmes (8:40 p.m. CT). When Hannity brings up the subject of 270 mass graves under Hussein, actor Mike Farrell fights constant interruptions from Hannity to point out that the mass graves were mainly filled in during the Reagan and Bush I administrations. [Hannity's brilliant rebuttal: "Oh, it's Reagan's fault!"]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, enough of Fox. The last four days have been quite a re-education for me. Here's what I learned: that the history of Hussein's rule of Iraq is relevant, but only selectively. The dirty business that France, Russia, and Germany did with Hussein is an endless outrage but when it comes to the U.S., no discussion is allowed with offenders interrupted, shouted down, and called names. I learned that the Internet needs federal regulation ("standards") because the bad, bad people who write on it spin, distort, and propagandize. "We Report, You Decide" is appropriate for Fox, but for some reason I missed, not for the Internet.

I also learned that it's a respectable view (with no evidence provided) that Saddam's WMD could be hidden in Iran or Syria and that it couldn't possibly be a coincidence that those are the two nations that our beloved neocons want to invade next. Most important of all, I learned that George W. Bush and the U.S.A. are now Jesus, roaming the world with a whip to root out sin and iniquity. Poor Jesus. I guess He should feel so lucky to be compared to George W. Bush.

Dr. Dale Steinreich is a contributor to AgainstTheCrowd.com and an adjunct scholar of the Mises Institute.

What was the court case all about? FOX ordered a reporter to give out false information that she knew was false. Fox got sued, and the good ole Florida Courts said it'd OK for FOX to LIE!!!