Hume ignored evidence that torture by U.S. is "recruiting tool" for terrorists
SUMMARY: Brit Hume falsely suggested there is no evidence that the United States' use of torture has served as a "recruiting tool" for terrorist groups. In fact, military and FBI interrogators have stated that terrorists have employed the United States' use of torture and harsh interrogation techniques as a recruiting device.
During the April 19 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume falsely suggested there is no evidence that the United States' use of torture has served as a "recruiting tool" for terrorist groups. Responding to the suggestion from NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson that terrorist groups will no longer be able to point to U.S. interrogation techniques to boost recruitment, Hume stated: "Oh, as a recruiting tool? Where's the evidence of that?" In fact, military and FBI interrogators have stated that terrorists have employed the United States' use of torture and harsh interrogation techniques as a recruiting device. For instance, using the pseudonym Matthew Alexander, an Air Force senior interrogator who was in Iraq in 2006 wrote: "I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq."
Alexander further wrote in his November 30, 2008, Washington Post op-ed that "[i]t's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse." From Alexander's op-ed:
I know the counter-argument well -- that we need the rough stuff for the truly hard cases, such as battle-hardened core leaders of al-Qaeda, not just run-of-the-mill Iraqi insurgents. But that's not always true: We turned several hard cases, including some foreign fighters, by using our new techniques. A few of them never abandoned the jihadist cause but still gave up critical information. One actually told me, "I thought you would torture me, and when you didn't, I decided that everything I was told about Americans was wrong. That's why I decided to cooperate."
Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there's the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives.
I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans.
Alexander, along with Air Force interrogator Steven Kleinman, also wrote in a March 10 New York Times op-ed that President Obama's ban on torture "will enhance the country's security by undermining Al Qaeda's most effective recruiting theme."
Moreover, in prepared testimony for a June 10, 2008, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on "coercive interrogation techniques," retired FBI special agent John Cloonan -- who stated that he has interrogated members of Al Qaeda -- asserted that such techniques have "helped to recruit a new generation of jihadist martyrs":
Senator Leahy and distinguished members of the Committee. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify about coercive interrogation techniques, their effectiveness, the reliability of the information obtained in this way and the FBI's knowledge of these matters. It is my belief, based on a 27 year career as a Special Agent and interviews with hundreds of subjects in custodial settings, including members of al Qaeda, that the use of coercive interrogation techniques is not effective.
[...]
There are 3 questions I would like this committee to ponder. Has the use of coercive interrogation techniques lessened Al Qaeda's thirst for revenge against the US? Have these methods helped to recruit a new generation of jihadist martyrs? Has the use of coercive interrogation produced the reliable information its proponents claim for it? I would suggest that the answers are "no", "yes" and "no". Based on my experience in talking to al Qaeda members, I am persuaded that revenge, in the form of a catastrophic attack on the homeland, is coming, that a new generation of jihadist martyrs, motivated in part by the images from Abu Ghraib, is, as we speak, planning to kill American and that nothing gleaned from the use of coercive interrogation techniques will be of any significant use in the forestalling this calamitous eventuality.
Torture degrades our image abroad and complicates our working relationships with foreign law enforcement and intelligence agencies. If I were the director of marketing for al Qaeda and intent on replenishing the ranks of jihadists. I know what my first piece of marketing collateral would be. It would be a blast e-mail with an attachment. The attachment would contain a picture of Private England (sp) pointing at the stacked, naked bodies of the detainees at Abu Ghraib. The picture screams out for revenge and the day of reckoning will come. The consequences of coercive intelligence gathering will not evaporate with time.
From the April 19 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:
JUAN WILLIAMS (Fox News political contributor): Don't you think it speaks, first of all, to the very nature of the terrorist, who think the worst of us and think that we are monsters, to say no we don't engage in these activities -- and to protect our military men and women from that kind of treatment.
HUME: Do you seriously think that some Al Qaeda terrorist, having captured an American, will be more merciful in the treatment of that American because of this?
WILLIAMS: No, I'm saying to you, those -- listen, those people will chop your head off in a second, Brit.
HUME: There you go.
WILLIAMS: But what I'm saying to you is they will also know that we don't operate by their rules and they don't set the terms of engagement for us as Americans, that we don't live by standards of torture. And that because of that guy --
HUME: Wait a minute. Hold on a second. What are the positive benefits of that, as it were?
WILLIAMS: What are the positive benefits --
HUME: -- of their knowing that. How does that benefit us?
WILLIAMS: Listen, it's not a matter of their knowing. They know that we are decent and we are law-abiding --
HUME: And how does that help to have them -- have them --
WILLIAMS: How does that help?
HUME: How does that -- how does it help for terrorists to think that?
WILLIAMS: Because I think that -- I think that they --
HUME: Doesn't it just simply make it --
LIASSON: As a recruiting tool. The argument is that they can't --
HUME: Oh, as a recruiting tool?
LIASSON: -- that they -- yeah. Well, look, that --
HUME: Where's the evidence of that?
LIASSON: Look, the image of the world -- of the U.S. in the world does count. On a practical level, the question is: Can now terrorists kind of train themselves to resist everything that they know we're going to use or not?
Hume has ignored logic his entire career. One could say he's always been "ignorant."
Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume
Maybe old boy is really a comedian vying for John Oliver' s job over at the Daily Show.
Brit could be trying out. I've often wished these people were not as obtuse as they appear to be. However, I suspect Brit needs a serious going over by a proctologist...
Maybe he fell on Fusille Jerry (ala Kramer) when he was auditioning for Seinfeld back in the day ;-) He really does bring unintentional comic schtick as the vacant eyed, vapid and dopey analyst to his role....er job.
Yep, think he puts the pasta in the wrong end and it's stuck ;-)
Hume: "tut tut, hummm, er, U.S. torture helped recruit terrorists? Na, never heard that...hmmmmm harumph buh buh buh,..."
That dern white flour and water will make ya stuck no matter what end you put it in...;-0)
Old Brit is so stuck he can't even find anything nice to say about the first puppy:
Hume: Uhhhh....Bo's not my type of dog. I like the name but it doesn't seem to fit that little, sort of girly little dog.
His dog maybe has the manly name Bo Peep, and is a chihuaua.
I submit to you, dear lady, that Brit looks like a basset hound and is jealous that Bo is cuter than both he and his chihuaua. Bo Peep, that he carries around in his man purse ;-)
Alexander Britton Hume and Droopy: separated at birth?
http://thedroopyfund.com/images/droopy.jpg
Now that was cute, MJH!
I think they are all a bunch of cartoon characters over there:
Chris Wallace = Huckleberry Hound
Sean Hannity = Boo Boo
Bill O'Reilly = Mr. Magoo
Rush Limbaugh = the chickenhawk from every Foghorn Leghorn (James Carville) cartoon
Yeah, but everyone knows that the military and the FBI have a liberal bias!
As does reality!
Look, these guys could train all they want to try and resist tortures like waterboarding, truth is, waterboarding cracks people quickly. I have more than a few friends who went through SEER school in the military, and they knew that it was just an exercise, and they knew what they were in for, and yet, they cracked, easily. And it's not as if these guys didn't know what we were doing, or what we could do. People are acting as if this is some grand revelation.
I remember reading an article, right after Abu Gharib broke, and it was said that terrorist recruiting went through the roof in the months after. Same for when we invaded Iraq. Same for when we invaded Afghanistan. These are folks who will strap explosives to themselves, and take out an entire city block to make their "beliefs" known. Why do they think some torture from us will affect what they do, or don't do?
I agree Mags. I don't think torture will sway them either way. If they hate us, they hate us. IMHO, beating someone within an inch of their life will do nothing. It may or may not give you some information that may be faulty. Dealing with religious nutballs has always been difficult.
Don't forget, torture is illegal, no matter who thinks it works or doesn't work.
Agreed, but it would depend on the definition of torture, and who deems it illegal.
How about the Geneva Convention and our own laws! C'mon one prisoner tortured 166 times in 1 month. When did we get the information on the 166th? Stop parsing waterboarding is torture, and we prosecuted other countries for doing it!
The Geneva Convention applies to " high contracting parties" and signatories, and the concept of an illegal combatant is not addressed. When one party in a conflict is a signatory and the other is not then the signatory is bound as long as the non-signatory abides. I hardly think that these people abide by the Geneva Convention so there is a debatable issue here. Sould we take the high road, sure but when the protection of the country is at stake the concept of "desperate times require desperate measures" may be resonable. Waterboarding is considered torture by most, but it is also a training tactic , so if I was in a position where I thought I could save lives, I would not hesitate to use it. Sleep deprivation, caterpillars, loud music etc, if it works, use it. It is interesting as these reports are released by Obama, that none of the reports that document the gains made by these tactics have been released along with the tactics themelves. Shouldn't we have the whole story. it is also interesting to note that certain Democrats, such as Pelosi , were fully aware of these tactics as they were occurring and they had no objections then. Not until they became a political tool, did they speak out. They were quite happy back then to let Bush make the tough decisions. Look at one of the things that Clinton considered.
• In addition to a secret "finding" to authorize covert action, which has been reported before, Clinton signed three highly classified Memoranda of Notification expanding the available tools. In succession, the president authorized killing instead of capturing bin Laden, then added several of al Qaeda's senior lieutenants, and finally approved the shooting down of private civilian aircraft on which they flew. Here is the article that the quote came from. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62725-2001Dec18¬Found=true
What evidence do you have that Obama has memos in his possession detailing the success of torture? Again, much evidence is out there that torture doesn't work, as we discussed in the Limbaugh threads. The ticking time bomb scenario is overused, and if torture doesn't work, why use it then? Besides, how would we know about an imminent attack in the first place? Wouldn't a captured terrorist suspect be willing to provide false information to us if he/she knew about it, not only to stop the torture, but to throw us off so we do get attacked?
If we know of an imminent attack, somehow, why not bother trying to prevent it than enact sadistic desires to inflict pain on someone?
If we have to waterboard someone more than 100 times, does it really work? If it works, why not just once? Why not no more than 3 times?
For Clinton to allow the killing of many innocent civilians in order to kill Bin Laden is pretty bad. Again, he was a centrist, not really liberal.
What evidence do you have that Democrats had no objections when it was discovered that these tactics were used?
I think my point is that in the case of Islamic extremists, if there was a "24" scenario, why would a captured suspect want to erase all the progress that had been made leading to that point?
We are fighting an enemy that would rather die over anything else. I don't think dumping water on them will change that.
Both Hayden and Tenet have stated that these techniques were effective and Cheney has spoken of reports that have pointed to that effectiveness. Now obviously I do not have proof of this, the reports are still classified. My point was that with this claim being out there wouldn't it be a good thing for us to know the whole truth. And here is a news report about the knowledge of the tactics. My recollection was that Harman of Ca was the only one who objected to the tactics. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/08/AR2007120801664.html
Waterboarding IS torture. There is no reasonable dispute. It was torture when used during the Spanish inquisitions. It was torture when we IMPRISONED Japanese officers for waterboarding our men or when we courtmartialed a US soldier for being photoed merely being in the PRESENCE of the ARVN while they waterboarded a prisoner. The talking point about it being a training tactic is disengenuous. When you KNOW you are not going to be hurt, when you KNOW it is being done by those who have your safety as their first concern it is simply NOT the same thing.
Sleep deprivation is torture. As Alexander Sozhenitskin. Also within a few days it renders the victim so brainmuddled it is useless. I have seen an interview WITH an interragator who said anyone sleepdep was worthless as his brain was tapioca. I you wouldnt hesitate to torture someone maybe its time you took your soul in for a check up as it may be missing entirely.
The whole Pelosi knew thing is a hivemind talking point that we know you have been programmed with. The thing is it was STILL classified information the disclosure of which would have been a crime so what does it matter if they knew when they couldnt do anything about it and how could you POSSIBLY know if the objected since because it was classified they could NOT do in public. It sure is easy to wind you guys up to repeat things so ridiculous no one thinking about it for one second could possibly take it seriously
That is pure Bs!
Well if you think so you should research the Geneva Convention.
You don't know what your talking about :
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
Hers's U.S. law :
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113C.html
Personally, I think a lot of people stuck their heads in the sand after 9/11 in the rush to find and prosecute the people involved. It may make it more understandable but; it doesn't make it right. Torture, sorry, "enhanced interrogation techniques" is a slippery slope. If waterboarding is OK, what about bamboo splinters under the fingernails. Just where do you stop? Do we want to be as bad as the people who we are trying to defeat?
You are right about the climate after 9/11, at least in my opinion. And you are also right about the slippery slope. But I do agree with the premise that if officials truly believe that lives are at stake, there should be some leeway in interrogation methods. Not bamboo splinters or the like , but bugs and sleep deprivation, loud music and even waterboarding might be called for. These were methods employed when we were still worried about imminent attacks, these methods were abandoned long ago. And as we now know even some of the dems were aware of these methods, including Pelosi. There are a few links I have posted in this thread you might want to look at. Imagine the reaction if Bush had not used forceful methods on these guys and another attack took place. He would have been vilified for not doing his job as president to protect the American people.
Yeah. Torture is illegal depending on what governing body you respect and what constitutes torture according to that body. I would say that 95% of the time, torture is unethical and immoral, which is really what we should be concerned with, not whether the Geneva police will come after us.
Try 100%
from Tolkien, Gandalf speaking to Frodo: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends..."
I think you misunderstood my 5% withholding. I didn't say they "deserved" torture (but we can have that conversation =-> ), but I think that there's the possibility that the end could justify the means if the end was bad enough and the means effective and rare enough.
Torture doesn't work. Period. People will admit to anything and everything to make it stop.
Anything that is torturous is torture, right?
I'm not talking about torture for someone to admit guilt, I'm talking about ways of convincing them to tell information that we don't know and need to.
.ex "Where is that bomb?"
I don't supoort torture as a regular means of interrogation at all. If we somehow knew that there was a bomb about to blow up 100,000 people and we needed to convince 1 person to let us know where it was, I'm ok with whatever.
Well then we'll just call Jack Bauer because you're living in teevee reality, not real world reality.
I think that most people would agree with you, but the issue is similar to shootings that are deemed to be in "self-defense." We wouldn't make it legal to shoot someone just because it's occasionally justified. We address it, case by case, in the judicial system.
The same should apply to "torture." Bush tried to legalize it because he thought that it was occasionally justified. Instead, we should let our officials know that they should use their best judgement, but also that their judgement does is not a free pass, and if they're wrong that they'll face punishment.
Instead, we should let our officials know that they should use their best judgement, but also that their judgement does is not a free pass, and if they're wrong that they'll face punishment.
I'm supposed to be comforted by the idea that some CIA hack with a hair up his hind quarters is using his "best judgment" when he yanks a US citizen off the streets, flies him off to Romania, and does unspeakable things to him because "if he's wrong, he'll face punishment?" Heck, Obama just walked through the CIA handing out free passes to everyone who even had a wet dream about torturing someone.
Sorry, but no. We're the good guys. We Do Not Torture. PERIOD. Maybe it seems like we're choosing a more difficult path by saying that some things are off limits. But that's what the good guys do.
.ex "Where is that bomb?
So Khalid Sheik Mohammed knew about 183 bombs?
"I don't supoort torture as a regular means of interrogation at all. If we somehow knew that there was a bomb about to blow up 100,000 people and we needed to convince 1 person to let us know where it was, I'm ok with whatever."
Do you have ONE example of ANY one person telling where the bomb was (if there was a bomb about to blow up 10000 people, and we saved 100000 lives because we disabled the bomb based on what he/she disclosed) , because the person was tortured, or went through torturous experience?
Name one and I will reconsider my opinion on whether torture is ok or not. If you cannot, a simple ' I cannot' will help too.
Otherwise, I will conclude to myself that you live in a world of constant fear, unable / unwilling to do anything that might actually get rid of those feras.
Otherwise (meaning you are just a hit and run right wing poster), I will conclude to myself that people like you are willing to live in a state of constant fear, looking up to the government to keep you safe (and crying about the government being too big), even through torture of other human beings (who knows, may be your fellow citizens at some point).
If the administration releases the outcome of these interrogations you may get your one example. The government gave you a glimpse but not the whole picture.
So, if they do release the information about the one instance that they got information that stopped a terrorist attack, are they also going to release the information they got that didn't lead anywhere or targeted people who had nothing to do with terrrorism? I mean really, if someone is waterboarding me I am sure that I will tell them anything they want to know as well as anything I can make up, in the hopes of not being drowned.
There are reportedly additional reports that Obama has not released that do support the claim that valuable info was obtained by the methods described in the released reports. Does Obama want us to know the whole story , we'll see.
Reported by WHOM? Cough up those links or no one is going to believe you. It is flat out silly for you to make vague claims you do not substantiate then accuse Obama of not wanting us to know the whole story based on him NOT giving YOU what YOU want to hear that may or may NOT exist.
and you know this how? Please provide the link! I think Obama has info that actually proves their UFO"S and that Martians have infiltrated our military but won't release it! See how that works?
I agree with you. Let the whole cat out of the bag. Why not give a list of all our intellegence officers name to anyone that wants them. If I worked for the C.I.A. I would look for a new job. Keeping America free and safe could cause them to lose their freedom. What a thankless task these days.
There are no such reports from a verifiable news source.
So what your saying is that the right is correct in saying that there are many gray areas in the effective use of interrogation but that everything else is either black or white, with us or against us, patriot or traitor, good or evil?
Do you think "95% wrong" is the same thing as saying "there are many gray areas" ?
No, but anytime I see someone using the end justifies he means as an excuse I assume that the person using that type of reasoning could be convinced that anything is allowed.
The thing that no one on any side of this issue has mentioned is that 99.99% of the people captured by their enemy in any war have no information to give.
Most are common soldiers who aren't told much and most of the time have no idea where they're at or why they're there.
Oh yeah. Well torture is nothing compared to beheading. (sarcasm)
What was their recruiting tool in 1970's,1980"s and 1990"s when we were not torturing anyone. Yet as I recall planes were being hijacked, innocent passengers were being thrown off cruise ships, navy personnel on planes were shot and thrown on the tarmac, embassies were being blown up, the twin towers were bombed, barracks were blown up and various other violent acts by the peaceful ones were being perpetrated. What horrible things were we doing then that advanced their recruiting back then?
For one, the air base in Saudi Arabia, which is one of the main reasons cited by OBL for 9-11. And guess what? Bush caved in to the terrorists and closed the air base.
Would you like a list of all the crazies and their acts throughout the past 30 years? Why don't you stop generalizing and talk to a specific terrorism act? There is always a cause and effect; sometimes going back generations. None of it justified, of course.
The Media Matters article addresses a specific point, which you've ignored, and the Bush administration ignored, to the endangerment of our soldiers.
How about Iran-Contra! How about our proping up of the Sha of Iran overturning an election? How about incursion into Nicataugua iin the 50's. How about the Viet NAM WAR and the lie that got us into it? C'mon that's too easy!
Easy it is. Obviously, fishergirl seems to have failed to understand that this country has a very bloody interventionalist history, that we have done some truly awful things in the name of 'freedom'.
sad but true!
Less than 100 Americans (including military) were killed at the hands of Islamic terrorists during Bill Clinto's 8 years in office. Once again, LESS THAN 100 AMERICANS, in fact, a right winger killed twice as many Americans in one attack than all the attacks you mentioned. 3,000 Americans died on one day of Bush's watch with another 6,000 troops dead. As you can see from my stats, the direction Bush has led America in has created more terror, much more terror.
SEEYER I'll second that post Too bad the CONS cant.
killing less than a hundred makes it okay, but torturing one prisoner makes it wrong? Love your equivocative mathematics. So tell me, God forbid, after stopping these practices, kissing their butts, and being afraid to call terrorism exactly that, these same miscreants stage another 9/11 event on Obama's watch, what will you say then? obviously 9 months are enough to make sure that you coudnt' blame clinton's actions for that since you place it on "Bush's watch", so will you say boo after september of this year if those same people or their buddies do it again?
Your stats are what you cherry pick.. pat yourself onthe back all you want your blameshifting/placing logic is faulty.
9-11 WAS bush's fault. He used that report about al queda planning to use airplanes as a weapon as toilet paper while he was on vacation to clear some shrubs off of his phony cowboy ranch. But you're incapable of finding fault with anything republican, so I'm really talking to a blank stare right now, aren't I?
killing less than a hundred makes it okay, but torturing one prisoner makes it wrong?
So killing a hundred Americans makes torture RIGHT? Is that what you're saying? How many can we torture for every 100? And can it be anyone? For any reason?
You sound like you hope there is another attack.
Frankly, there probably will be another attack eventually. (In fact, despite what see-what-they-want right wingers say, our allies have been attacked a number of times since 9/11.) Torturing people isn't going to keep it from happening. If anything, torturing our enemies is probably more likely to ensure that another attack occurs, and sooner rather than later.
But if feeeeeeels good to torture someone, huh?
BUNK. No one said killing anyone was alright only that things got WORSE under Bush which no reasonable person could deny. We certainly tortured MORE than one person I dont know how you can even post such inane nonsense. You are hateful and no one is kissing anyones butt except YOU kissing the collective butt of the Bush administration. Please spare us your guess about logic. You dont understand logic, you dont understand the concept of logic and my guess is you never will.
First thing, will there be another terrorist attack on the US? Almost gauranteed.
Will torturing someone stop this? NO.
I don't blame Bush for 9/11. Could he have done more to try to prevent it? Sure, but hindsight is 20/20. Prior to 9/11 how many people in the US would have stood in line at the airport and agreed to take their shoes off to pass through security? Are you kidding, there would have been riots. What we have to understand is that there will always be people that hate us and will try to carry out acts to harm us. All we can do is our best to prevent it. Should we torture people? Why give them more reasons to hate us?
what about the nearly 300 killed in Lebanon. What about all the african civilians killed when they bombed our embassy. or perhaps they don't count. your stats, and you, are meaningless
The overthrow of the first democratic government in the Islamic Middle east, that is Iran in 53. The support for the illegal invastion of Lebanon by Israel in 82. The shooting down of civilian airliners in both Iran and Libya and so on. I am not saying these are in any way valid reasons for terrorism as none exist but lets not pretend that we never vexed the middle east until AFTER we invaded Iraq.
Can anyone stand Juan Williams?
Nope!
Fox and Brit are simply the "B" team of media
HUME lost any credibility he ever had whwn he joined the FALSE NEWS CHANNEL." FAIR AND BALANCED", What a JOKE.
I'v enoticed that on average lately, at least 90 percent of MMfA's wornout diatribe is directed against Fox. why dont you just change your mission statement to "Dedicated to smearing and bringng down FNC" and at least be honest about your own ideologically inspired hatred. Remeber something called the first amendment? It wasn't created or defended just for the loony left.
90%? Maybe its only 89%...... Poor try on your part to smear MMFA mission statement. Read it again, if you can read....... All misinformation by repugs, that would include Fox. Funny about that 1st Amendment, it includes everyone including MMFA.
I guess missdee forgot about Fox suing to be allowed to lie. And winning the case.
Give MissDeeMinus a break. She tried to read MMfA's mission statement, but her lips got tired halfway through, so she stopped.
Someone tossing around phrases like "the loony left" shouldn't be so quick to attack others for their supposed "ideologically inspired hatred."
Everyone here defends the right of Fox News to say whatever they want, just as everyone here (other than you, it seems) defends the right of MMFA to call Fox News on its biases. Perhaps it's YOU who has the problem with the First Amendment.
Why dont you ignore MMFA?They have First Amendment rights too, you know.
Better yet, why don't you use logic? No loony left or sacry right for it.
The problem MISSDEE, is that FOX is the NUMBER ONE SOURCE OF CONSERVATIVE LIES and MISSINFORMATION on tv hence MMFA's pointing out all their lies.
"I'v enoticed that on average lately, at least 90 percent of MMfA's wornout diatribe is directed against Fox"
Perhaps FOX is broadcasting 90 percent of the media lies?
"Dedicated to smearing and bringng down FNC"
So are you denying FOX News said the things they said?
"Remeber something called the first amendment? It wasn't created or defended just for the loony left."
Apparently the only time the loony right cares about the 1st Amendment is when someone points out yet another RW lie. Please feel free to explain how pointing out FOX's falsehoods affects their 1st Amendment rights?
You are right MissDee and the libs here cannot stand that there is a network that gives both sides of a story, they prefer there heroes on the left who speak to them personally. You know the network that does not have any heated debate, they are so proper and polite. Of course when everyone thinks alike there is no need for debate. Ignorance is bliss.
Did anyone else's irony meter just explode?
I remember a few years back the day of the London terror bombings Britt Hume opening his show not with a report on the deaths ,destruction , the horror of it all but with talk of how it effected the stock markets and HIS bottom line. No sympathy was expressed just how much or little it would damage his portfolio.
There are many such networks. FOX is not one of them. They are a pure propaganda outfit. Of course if ignorance IS bliss, that is instead of the ACTUAL quote then you are doubtlessly the most blissful person on the Planet
Actually I wish that there was ONE network that gave both sides of the story. From what I have seen, none of the network news broadcasts could be indited for telling both sides of the story. FNC tends to spout the right wing view of things more than the rest. It doesn't mean the other networks don't have their own slanted views it just means FNC is obviously more slanted than the rest.
Using your free speech to criticize someone else's speech does not infringe on that person's free speech rights.
I have noticed that your posts never coherent nor EVER making much sense are increasingly inane. How is MMFA smearing Fox by citing their OWN WORDS IN CONTEXT? Is it that they are SO undeniably bereft of journalistic integrity that to dissemenate them outside of the brainwashed inbred listeners is to be a smear?
Is MMFA trying to bring Fox down without actually CALLING for them to lose their license or BE brought down? Are you capable of making sense? Nice you talking about hatred when the hatred DRIPS from your every post you really are a hypocrite.
There is NO first amendment protection from being criticized. You wingnuts really have no conception of what the first amendment even IS. What is ISNT is for the protection ONLY of the MORONIC rightwing
solon ,amen to that last post.
Hume is easily the most obnoxious ideolog employed at Fixed News. Ever watch him on *Fox News Sunday* when Chrissy Pooh brings in his "panel of experts" for commentary, a bunch of pundits that includes the usual token liberal, Juan Williams. The camera will occasionally cut to Hume's snit-faced expressions of "give-me-a-break" during Williams' responses to Bill Kristol's mainstream neocon observations, so you know he's signaling Chrissy Pooh he has a good right wingnut retort. Like everything on Fixed News, these presentations are rigged, and one can only hope the useful idiots like Williams get paid handsomely for their useless roles. They let Hume "retire" from his anchor work so that he could become ideolog emeritus. He would lie when the truth would suit him better.
As the song lyric goes, "and another eye for another eye until everyone is blind."