A Blog Around The Clock

Only in the FoxNews Fantasy Land

You may have heard that Libby was found guilty today. Apparently, the decision for the jury was easy.

But what do you think the FoxNews-watching mouthbreathers are hearing? The official spin, of course. Which they will continue to believe for years to come. As in “Libby not guilty“:
Keep it simple: somebody in the White House lied and as a result we went to Iraq. Period.


  1. #1 greensmile
    March 7, 2007

    It is for s__t like this that I have been writing, via MoveOn and other factilitators letters to the Nevada Dem party and Sen. Reid to drop Fox and hold their debates on a legitimate news network.

    I’d encourage anyone who wants this kind of baloney to cease to add what pressure they can to the misguided Democrats.\

    These are not mere slip-ups folks, some hack carefully doctors words, captions and what not to produce lies like that. No one should be able to make a living by damaging the democracy with propaganda posing as news.

  2. #2 Deep Thought
    March 7, 2007

    Step back and breathe. I saw this broadcast, myself, live. The screen just before this one said “scooter libby found guilty of perjury and obstructing justice” – true. and, BTW, he *was*, actually, acquitted of lying to the FBI.

    Let me guess – you never watch Fox News but know aaaaaaallll about it, right? You see a screen cap and a rant by some leftist and that’s all you need to know, right?

  3. #3 coturnix
    March 7, 2007

    I watched enough Fox News in my life to know that it is a despicable PR agency for the GOP – they lie and lie and lie. Nothing – not a single word said there, or printed on the screen, or a superposition of words and images is ever accidental. It is designed to build pro-GOP frames and to disseminate lies. It is no surprise that in survey after survey FoxNews watchers are the worst informed of all Americans – they still believe Saddam had WMDs!cc

  4. #4 Deep Thought
    March 7, 2007

    Can you be a touch clearer on the time frame of your entire “they still believe Saddam had WMDs”, LOL ROTFLMAO, etc. After all, Saddam *did* use chemical weapons, often, back in the day.

  5. #5 coturnix
    March 7, 2007

    Don’t be disenginoues. We are talking about 2003 and the mushroom cloud – the supposed reason for the Iraq invasion. Not the 20-year old weapons that Cheney and Rumsfeld gave Saddam to gas Iranians and Kurds.

  6. #6 Deep Thought
    March 7, 2007

    Don’t be disingenuous yourself. Saddam did everything in his power to appear to have WMDs during the entire inspection process to both intimidate his regional foes and to attempt to wring concessions from the UN.

    Try this article if you are confused


  7. #7 coturnix
    March 7, 2007

    And you’d rather believe Saddam’s obvious see-through domestic-targeted blatherings than Hans Blix?

  8. #8 MarkP
    March 7, 2007

    Keep on point, which is not what people thought in the past, or what Saddam wanted people to believe. The point is, after all we now know, who “still” believes Saddam had the WMDs that we supposedly went to war to keep him from using, despite our collective inability to find them? “Still” is the answer to the “time frame” question above, and sadly, surveys have shown it to be the viewers of Faux News. Not coincidentally, these are the same people who think the war in Iraq is going well, and that Bush has been a good president. As cult leaders throughout history have demonstrated, you can get people to believe all sorts of bizarre things if you can control the “information” flow.

    As evidence of the blatant slant of Faux News, I noted the use of the term “homicide bomber” the other night to describe a suicide bomber. And people call that news…

  9. #9 Deep Thought
    March 7, 2007

    Let me quote your response to when i asked you for a time frame,
    “We are talking about 2003 and the mushroom cloud – the supposed reason for the Iraq invasion.”
    Thus I wrote about, duh, 2003 and the lead up to it. If you had answered my question “right now” I would have written about right now!
    As for Saddam’s ‘obvious see through rhetoric’ – it fooled both Clintons, Gore, Kerry, Pelosi, and virtually every other Democratic leader, didn’t it?

  10. #10 Deep Thought
    March 7, 2007

    As for ‘on point’, this post is supposedly about Fox News lying and claiming Libby was found not guilty. I told you – it first announced what he was found guilty of, then announced what he was acquitted of. That little ol’ screen shot above is the misleading propaganda, Bora. Newscorpse took a one second screen shot, put it out of context to *ahem* “frame” the story as they wished, and you swallowed it.

  11. #11 coturnix
    March 7, 2007

    Here’s another screenshot. Remember “Mark Foley (D-FL)”? Obama/Osama? They are lying liers and they do not even deny it. Only fools believe what they say. They are a PR organization, not news. And people who believe them, no nothing about reality.

  12. #12 J-Dog
    March 7, 2007

    Hey Coturnix – You have Your Very Own DaveScot Springer Troll! Take that Orac!

    We should have a contest and see which one is actually the dumbest, creepiest, fattest, and most likely to kowtow to the right-wing party line, while munching Cheesy Poofs.

  13. #13 Colugo
    March 7, 2007

    “Not the 20-year old weapons that Cheney and Rumsfeld gave Saddam to gas Iranians and Kurds.”

    Let’s not conflate the US’s pro-Saddam tilt during the Iran-Iraq War, including the US refusal to condemn Saddam’s use of chemical weapons, with the sources of Iraq’s chemical weapons. In fact, Iraq’s chemical weapons were overwhelmingly supplied by non-US sources, notably – but not exclusively – the Netherlands and Germany. (In addition, Iraq’s chemical weapons program is sometimes conflated with its largely US-supplied biological research stocks and with Iraq’s conventional military program, which was supplied mainly by the Soviets and French.)

    Dutch businessman’s connection with Halabja.

    The pro-Saddam tilt began in the Carter administration, spearheaded by Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. The Carter-Zbigniew policy was continued and extended by Reagan and Rumsfeld.

    For his part, Michael Parenti (Michael Bérubé has sharply criticized Parenti’s writings on the Balkans) maintains that the Iranians were responsible for Halabja, relying on Pentagon sources. Parenti is incorrect, however.



  14. #14 Deep Thought
    March 7, 2007

    Calm down! Please! I am just trying to point out – no news agency is as bad as you claim Fox is, nor is NewsCorpse bias-free.

    Like I asked before – who *do* you trust for unbiased news?

    WHen was the last time you left your parents’ basement?

  15. #15 Colugo
    March 7, 2007

    Scott Ritter recently wrote about Iraq’s WMD programs:

    I’m C-Span and Charlie Rose watcher myself, if I watch TV at all. (Who needs TV when you have the blogosphere and YouTube?)

  16. #16 Colugo
    March 7, 2007

    Correction on “if I watch TV at all.” I meant to add “for news and punditry” to that sentence. I rarely miss How I Met Your Mother, House, and some other favorites.

  17. #17 coturnix
    March 11, 2007

    Who do I trust? On TV, radio or newspapers? Nobody. They are all horrendous. Unprofessional. Ignorant. Boased. Fox is just the most blatant.

    That is why I spend a lot of time reading a variety of blogs, not all of which I agree with, gathering information presented in much more detail and wih much greater expertise than any in MSM, then trying to figure out for myself what I think.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.