Fox News Washington editor caught on tape gloating about lying on air

[Lonestar_logic]

he said he knew where they were and he didnt...no amount of links will change that fact

He was wrong, that doesn't mean he lied.

 

[bodecea]

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says - January 26, 2006 - The New York Sun

And if you believe that I have a bridge to Brooklyn I'm selling cheap.

Can you disprove it?

Go ahead and give evidence why these two officials and the two pilots should not be believed.

My guess is that you can't show either proof of deception or give reasons why the information is not to be trusted. You liberal pukes often say stuff like this should not be believed or that something isn't true with absolutely nothing to support your position.

So come on either put up or shut up!

When we were at McMurdo, we had some scientists from the National Science Foundation convinced we had smuggled in nucs.

Did we?

Disprove it.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And if you believe that I have a bridge to Brooklyn I'm selling cheap.

Can you disprove it?

Go ahead and give evidence why these two officials and the two pilots should not be believed.

My guess is that you can't show either proof of deception or give reasons why the information is not to be trusted. You liberal pukes often say stuff like this should not be believed or that something isn't true with absolutely nothing to support your position.

So come on either put up or shut up!

When we were at McMurdo, we had some scientists from the National Science Foundation convinced we had smuggled in nucs.

Did we?

Disprove it.

Your concession is duly noted.

 

[bodecea]

Can you disprove it?

Go ahead and give evidence why these two officials and the two pilots should not be believed.

My guess is that you can't show either proof of deception or give reasons why the information is not to be trusted. You liberal pukes often say stuff like this should not be believed or that something isn't true with absolutely nothing to support your position.

So come on either put up or shut up!

When we were at McMurdo, we had some scientists from the National Science Foundation convinced we had smuggled in nucs.

Did we?

Disprove it.

Your concession is duly noted.

Prove that that is a concession.

 

[bodecea]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg4qWPkOpfY

What exactly did he lie about?


You do know that speculation isn't lying.


Or perhaps you, like most liberals, are too stupid to know the difference.

i speculate that since you are from texas you like to **** chickens.
Im not lying, im just speculating. Maybe i'll take an ad out in the local paper speculating you like to grease up chickens and **** them...We can let the public decide on if its true or not.....

Oh dear.....he should try to disprove that now.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zg4qWPkOpfY

What exactly did he lie about?


You do know that speculation isn't lying.


Or perhaps you, like most liberals, are too stupid to know the difference.

i speculate that since you are from texas you like to **** chickens.
Im not lying, im just speculating. Maybe i'll take an ad out in the local paper speculating you like to grease up chickens and **** them...We can let the public decide on if its true or not.....

You're free to say or do whatever you wish. And I'd be free to sue you for slander and/or libel, whichever the case may be..

 

[ClosedCaption]

he said he knew where they were and he didnt...no amount of links will change that fact

He was wrong, that doesn't mean he lied.

I know, because nothing is a lie.

he said, he knew where they were. If he didnt know where they were why didnt he say that? Answer: because it was a lie.

In other words, he was asked a question where were they, He said he KNEW where they were, he did not. What is that called?

Now, when Obama said the stimulus would keep unemployement down under 8% righties went crazy screaming liar.

it's ok, I see from this thread repubs only believe that dems lie and Repubs never lie. Like kids believe in Santa Clause

 

[Lonestar_logic]

he said he knew where they were and he didnt...no amount of links will change that fact

He was wrong, that doesn't mean he lied.

I know, because nothing is a lie.

he said, he knew where they were. If he didnt know where they were why didnt he say that? Answer: because it was a lie.

In other words, he was asked a question where were they, He said he KNEW where they were, he did not. What is that called?

Now, when Obama said the stimulus would keep unemployement down under 8% righties went crazy screaming liar.

it's ok, I see from this thread repubs only believe that dems lie and Repubs never lie. Like kids believe in Santa Clause

He said "we know where WMD's are" and at the the time he believed that to be a true statement based on the intel that he had. In order for you to prove he lied you must prove that he knew the statement was untrue at the time he made it. Good luck!

Your strawman has no place in this discussion. Obama did say that about the unemployment and he was wrong, as he was and is on many things.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Lonestar ***** chickens? I knew it!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

i speculate that since you are from texas you like to **** chickens.
Im not lying, im just speculating. Maybe i'll take an ad out in the local paper speculating you like to grease up chickens and **** them...We can let the public decide on if its true or not.....

You're free to say or do whatever you wish. And I'd be free to sue you for slander and/or libel, whichever the case may be..

i figured you would go this route. Slander? I am just speculating that since you live in texas you **** chickens. I'm not saying you **** chickens, I am speculating.

See just like Sammons i am thinking out loud and letting other people decide for themselves if its true or not. Some may. and some may not.

So you can sue all you like, but we already have it as precedent that Fox news cant be in trouble for speculation. So good luck....


chicken ******

Speculation or not it's still slander and/or libel.

 

[editec]

What exactly did he lie about?


You do know that speculation isn't lying.

He himself labeled it "mischevious speculation"




Perhaps. but clearly he wasn't "too stupid" to know what his speculations really were, was he? He KNEW them to be mischevious

They were a lie masquarding as an idle speculation in a NEWS program. Such speculations are NOT appropriate in the news.

And that is all that kind of mischevious misinformation is pretty typical of the nature of propaganda.

In fact there's nothing new about this technique of the propagandists. Character assassination by mischevious speculation as old as the hills.

Shalespeare understood the technique well enough to put it into the mouth of one of his greatest villans..Richard III

Plots have I laid, inductions dangerous,
By drunken prophecies, libels and dreams,
To set my brother Clarence and the king
In deadly hate the one against the other:
And if King Edward be as true and just
As I am subtle, false and treacherous,
This day should Clarence closely be mew'd up,
About a prophecy, which says that 'G'
Of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be.

ACt I; scene 1
Richard III
by William Shakespeare

Mischievous speculation isn't a lie.

Yeah right...only it is.

It is mischevious because the speculator already knows that the specualtion isn't based on fact.

That's WHY it is characterized (by the man himself, in case you missed that in the video) AS mischevious.

Now unless English isn't your first language, I should not have to explain something this obvious to you, lad.

 

[bodecea]

He was wrong, that doesn't mean he lied.

I know, because nothing is a lie.

he said, he knew where they were. If he didnt know where they were why didnt he say that? Answer: because it was a lie.

In other words, he was asked a question where were they, He said he KNEW where they were, he did not. What is that called?

Now, when Obama said the stimulus would keep unemployement down under 8% righties went crazy screaming liar.

it's ok, I see from this thread repubs only believe that dems lie and Repubs never lie. Like kids believe in Santa Clause

He said "we know where WMD's are" and at the the time he believed that to be a true statement based on the intel that he had. In order for you to prove he lied you must prove that he knew the statement was untrue at the time he made it. Good luck!

Your strawman has no place in this discussion. Obama did say that about the unemployment and he was wrong, as he was and is on many things.

One has to wonder at the incompetence of the Bush administration, or (gods forbid) the incompetence of the on-the-ground military forces...if they KNEW where these WMDs were, but they let them go.

 

[ClosedCaption]

He was wrong, that doesn't mean he lied.

I know, because nothing is a lie.

he said, he knew where they were. If he didnt know where they were why didnt he say that? Answer: because it was a lie.

In other words, he was asked a question where were they, He said he KNEW where they were, he did not. What is that called?

Now, when Obama said the stimulus would keep unemployement down under 8% righties went crazy screaming liar.

it's ok, I see from this thread repubs only believe that dems lie and Repubs never lie. Like kids believe in Santa Clause

He said "we know where WMD's are" and at the the time he believed that to be a true statement based on the intel that he had. In order for you to prove he lied you must prove that he knew the statement was untrue at the time he made it. Good luck!

Your strawman has no place in this discussion. Obama did say that about the unemployment and he was wrong, as he was and is on many things.

"The former US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, admits in his memoirs that he made a mistake in claiming that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction sites round Baghdad and Tikrit, one of the main justifications for launching the Iraq invasion.

Rumsfeld says now: "I made a misstatement." What he meant to say is there were 'suspect sites'."

There it is! Rummy said so himself...

Obama couldnt have lied according to you because you have to prove he knew that unemployment would go above 8%. Nice try

 

[Avatar4321]

One has to wonder at the incompetence of the Bush administration, or (gods forbid) the incompetence of the on-the-ground military forces...if they KNEW where these WMDs were, but they let them go.

I always thought that was a stronger argument against President Bush then the "He lied" nonsense.

Oddly enough, the left prefered the he lied argument. And then ran an even bigger liar against him. If they did the "He's incompetant" argument because he lost the WMDs, I think Kerry would have had a much better argument. The "He's lying so support our liar" isnt really a great one.

 

[Article 15]

I'm seriously starting to believe that Lonestar_logic is really a world class troll.

 

[8537]

But, anyway, who gives a shit. The right wing is right, the left is wrong, and whatever it takes to defeat progressive liberalism is fine with me.

Malcolm X called this thinking "By Any Means Necessary", until he grew wiser.

 

[kiwiman127]

LOL, the left really is grasping at straws when they have to shun the truth, and strawman people with DIFFERENT OPINIONS. It truly is sad, but amusing. Carry on, PJ, carry on.

You could insert the far right into the above and the argument would be the same.
People who listen to or read only "news" that fits their ideology are basically weakminded, PERIOD. Fox News, MSNBC, Media Matters, The Blaze, etc; are propaganda machines. Defending any of the incredibly biased sources only exposes who are the sheep.
Why are people so willing to be that manipulated? That is the question for the ages.
It worked for the Nazis and it's working here.

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people
don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the
country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to
drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no
voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-Hermann Goering

Isn't the above statement basically describe what the US propaganda machines of today are doing exactly? These propaganda machines are using ideological fear to drive home their talking points to manipulate their audience. And the weakminded fall for every time. It's that easy.

 

[bodecea]

You're free to say or do whatever you wish. And I'd be free to sue you for slander and/or libel, whichever the case may be..

i figured you would go this route. Slander? I am just speculating that since you live in texas you **** chickens. I'm not saying you **** chickens, I am speculating.

See just like Sammons i am thinking out loud and letting other people decide for themselves if its true or not. Some may. and some may not.

So you can sue all you like, but we already have it as precedent that Fox news cant be in trouble for speculation. So good luck....


chicken ******

Speculation or not it's still slander and/or libel.

It's not slander or libel if it's true.

 

[edthecynic]

The man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed.

The Iraqi general, Georges Sada, makes the charges in a new book, "Saddam's Secrets," released this week. He detailed the transfers in an interview yesterday with The New York Sun.

"There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands," Mr. Sada said. "I am confident they were taken over."

Mr. Sada's comments come just more than a month after Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom, Moshe Yaalon, told the Sun that Saddam "transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria."

Iraq's WMD Secreted in Syria, Sada Says - January 26, 2006 - The New York Sun

And if you believe that I have a bridge to Brooklyn I'm selling cheap.

Can you disprove it?

Go ahead and give evidence why these two officials and the two pilots should not be believed.

My guess is that you can't show either proof of deception or give reasons why the information is not to be trusted. You liberal pukes often say stuff like this should not be believed or that something isn't true with absolutely nothing to support your position.

So come on either put up or shut up!

The burden of proof is on Sada, until he proves his claims he is merely a whacko trying to sell his book. His claims contradict the Dulfer Report.

Duelfer Report

On 30 September 2004, the ISG released the Duelfer Report, its final report on Iraq's purported WMD programs. Among its conclusions were:

• Saddam Hussein controlled all of the regime’s strategic decision making.
• Hussein's primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the regime.
• The introduction of the Oil-for-food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the regime.
• By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support.
• Iran was Iraq's pre-eminent motivator.
• The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judged that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD.
• Saddam ended his nuclear program in 1991. ISG found no evidence of concerted efforts to restart the program, and Iraq’s ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressively decayed after 1991.
• Iraq destroyed its chemical weapons stockpile in 1991, and only a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions were discovered by the ISG.
• Saddam's regime abandoned its biological weapons program and its ambition to obtain advanced biological weapons in 1995. While it could have re-established an elementary BW program within weeks, ISG discovered no indications it was pursuing such a course.
• Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability, which was essentially destroyed in 1991, after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

He himself labeled it "mischevious speculation"




Perhaps. but clearly he wasn't "too stupid" to know what his speculations really were, was he? He KNEW them to be mischevious

They were a lie masquarding as an idle speculation in a NEWS program. Such speculations are NOT appropriate in the news.

And that is all that kind of mischevious misinformation is pretty typical of the nature of propaganda.

In fact there's nothing new about this technique of the propagandists. Character assassination by mischevious speculation as old as the hills.

Shalespeare understood the technique well enough to put it into the mouth of one of his greatest villans..Richard III


ACt I; scene 1
Richard III
by William Shakespeare

Mischievous speculation isn't a lie.

Yeah right...only it is.

It is mischevious because the speculator already knows that the specualtion isn't based on fact.

That's WHY it is characterized (by the man himself, in case you missed that in the video) AS mischevious.

Now unless English isn't your first language, I should not have to explain something this obvious to you, lad.

No it's not based on fact, it's based on speculation. Being mischievous doesn't mean lying.

Damn you people are stupid!

mis·chie·vous (msch-vs)
adj.

1. Causing mischief.
2. Playful in a naughty or teasing way.
3. Troublesome; irritating.
4. Causing harm, injury, or damage.