Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Faux strikes again. Lies and the lying liars......

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 12:41 AM
Original message
Faux strikes again. Lies and the lying liars......

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97063,00.html

Watch Special Report With Brit Hume weeknights at 6 p.m. ET

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD DEAN, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH, D-OHIO, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

SENATOR BOB GRAHAM, D-FLA, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: President knew or should have known that there was no relationship between 9-11. There was no relationship between Usama Been Forgotten and Saddam Hussein.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BRIT HUME, HOST: It's an applause line. And in that case, a laughter line for the Democrats in their presidential debates. There you heard it from Howard Dean (search), from Dennis Kucinich (search) and finally, there from Senator Bob Graham (search) of Florida, the flat out statementdefinitive statement, no connection between 9-11 and Iraq.

Well, certainly the administration has never claimed a connection, but is it that clear that it is definite there was not? For more on this, we turn now to FOX News foreign affairs analyst, Mansoor Ijaz, who joins us now from Berlin; the man with the best sources we know of anybody on these kinds of issues.

Mansoor, welcome. And tell us, first of all, your sense about whether it iswhether it can be definitively stated as a fact that there was no9-11 connection to Iraq.

MANSOOR IJAZ, FOX NEWS FOREIGN AFFAIRS ANALYST: Well, Brit, I'll firstI'll say to you that with regard to Howard Dean and Congressman Kucinich, you have to forgive them because they don't know any better. But I was surprised to hear Bob Graham say that since he sat in a senior position on the Senate Intelligence Committee during the course of these events.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LoZoccolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
1. LIE.
"Well, certainly the administration has never claimed a connection, but is it that clear that it is definite there was not?"

I remember Colin Powell doing so at one point, very close to the beginning of the war before it began.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevolutionStartsNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. Lies lies lies lies lies lies lies
"Well, certainly the administration has never claimed a connection..."

Then they go on to say that there's no evidence that there ISN'T a connection. WTF is that? These people are nuts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dover Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 12:50 AM
Response to Original message
3. Wow....an alternate universe! Proof there ARE alternate realities!
Edited on Sun Sep-14-03 01:15 AM by Dover
It's blowing my mind! I mean, is Brit Hume really a name?
So how do ya change the channel, man? It's really bummin' me out, ya dig? A baaaaad trip. :hippie:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doomsayer13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 12:52 AM
Response to Original message
4. fair and balanced my ass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scairp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
5. They must think we are stupid
Edited on Sun Sep-14-03 01:16 AM by Scairp
We have all heard the current adminstration try to make the connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and now Butt Hume has the nerve to sit there and look the American people in the eye and claim the administration has never said that?!? Unbelievable. And of course, we all know the story with good ole Mansoor. I have come to the conclusion that they just can't help it, they are congenital liars.

Here's a link on point about this.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/leopold13.html

This is a good one too.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/9/12245...

"Senior Bush administration figures have at times cited meetings Ani had with Atta as evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and perhaps even proof of Saddam Hussein's complicity in the attacks".


But remember, the Bushies NEVER said there was a connection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mountainman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 07:00 AM
Response to Reply #5
19. They don't think we are stupid, the think the freeper types are stupid
FOX's major audience are the "tell me what to think" bunch. Those folks who tune into Rush on radio and FOX on TV to find out what to think about stuff each day. They have no critical thinking skills and will swallow anything FOX and Rush say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zo Zig Donating Member (419 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 12:55 AM
Response to Original message
6. 20 bucks says
Mansoor Ijaz is CIA, maybe someone will start digging.
The Sudan story has been his well of knowledge, but lets not forget the he is also a CFR member, and has lied on Faux more than once.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. here's a little dirt on Monsoor himself
http://www.likelystory.net/archives/000139.html

Monsoor Ijaz is a busy man. You know the guy. Newsmax, Fox News Channel, and the right-wing media have portrayed him as a Clinton top aide who negotiated on behalf of the United States with the Sudanese government for the arrest of Osama bin Laden. As the story goes, Ijaz negotiated in 1996 and 1997, winning Sudanese agreement for bin Ladens arrest, only to have the deal fall through because President Bill Clinton backed out and let bin Laden get away. The Cro-Magnons at Newsmax were so taken with Ijazs tale that they devoted much ink to it. It has become a firmly fixed part of the right wing's Clinton-hating lore. The problem is, however, Monsoor Ijaz is a liar.

Lots more at the link above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 01:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. more snips
Ijaz has given differing accounts of his involvement to different people. To Newsmax he certainly claimed he had negotiated the deals for bin Ladens arrest, but if you look up his biographies on the internet, his story begins to collapse. In his bio for the South Asian Journalists Association Ijaz makes only this claim with regard to negotiations with Sudan:

As a private American citizen, Ijaz negotiated Sudan's counter-terrorism offer to the Clinton administration in April 1997.
Newsmax claimed Ijaz was a Clinton top aide and had negotiated on behalf of Clinton. In his SAJA bio Ijaz changes his story, saying he acted as a private citizen. Indeed, Ijaz was NEVER an aide in the Clinton administration, "top" or otherwise.

Furthermore, the bio states he did his negotiating in April of 1997. Since bin Laden had been expelled from Sudan on May 18, 1996, Ijaz could not have negotiated with Sudan about his arrest. He was already in Afghanistan.

In the Newsmax stories Ijax claimed to have negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996 to 1998, but in his SAJA bio he claims only April of 1997. He clearly is exaggerating.

In the bio, Ijaz says he negotiated Sudans counter-terrorism offer to the Clinton administration. Clearly, in the bio he is claiming to have worked for the Sudanese, and in the Newsmax stories he claims to have worked for the United States. Both cannot be true. It is certain he did not work for the Clinton administration, and he could not have been involved in the Sudanese side since the offer came straight from its foreign minister.

On June 10, 1997, Ijaz testified before congress about terrorism in Sudan without ever once mentioning bin Laden.

Monsoor Ijaz is clearly a liar. What is remarkable is how the wingnuts at Newsmax and Fox News Channel hyped a wild-eyed claim they could have knocked down in a few minutes of Googling. Ijaz is a crackpot who tried to buy influence from the Clinton administration and was bitter when none was offered to him. But he got the wingnuts to run with his story. I don't know if they actually believed it, but they sure ran with it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. I think Ijaz is the guy behind all the emails from Nigeria!
;) NT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
legin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. A member of the neo-cons booking agency too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kayleybeth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 01:06 AM
Response to Original message
9. This never got any news coverage, but...
The only time I've ever heard shrub asked this question directly, he said he can't make that connection:

President Bush Meets with Prime Minister Blair
Remarks by the President and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
The Cross Hall
January 31, 2003

Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/2003013...
(quote is about 2/3 down the page)

Note this was 3 days after the SOTU speech, where he used the following bit of deliberately deceptive language (note that he mentions 9/11, Saddam, and the highjackers all in the same breath, trying to plant the seed that they are all connected):

"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein."
SOTU speech
January 28, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/2003012...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KYDEM Donating Member (213 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 01:31 AM
Response to Original message
11. Please read
Sen.Dayton gave this speech on the floor of the Senate Sept. 11, 2003.
Hhttp://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r108:15:./temp/~r108MaiLyv::e
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kayleybeth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. Here what I got
when I clicked your link

Please resubmit your search

Search results are only retained for a limited amount of time.Your search results have either been deleted, or the file has been updated with new information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zhade Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 02:06 AM
Response to Original message
13. IJAZ?????????
That guy is phonier than *'s "presidency", and has CIA fingerprints all over him!

GOD, we're not THAT stupid!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
knight_of_the_star Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 03:03 AM
Response to Original message
15. Wow
I wonder how Faux is going to do if we take the GOP and Bush out of power in '04. They are REALLY going to look stupid for propping up these lies when they get exposed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Borgnine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. My guess....
My guess is Fox News will thrive. Remember, Rush Limbaugh was very successful during Clinton's presidency, because it gave morons a place to bask in their extreme hatred for the man. The next Democratic president will probably be demonized even more than Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 06:26 AM
Response to Original message
17. Those guys claim they're "fair and balanced"???
That's more biased than a presidential radio address.

Their view seems to be "the president is the centre of public opinion; if we see someone to the left of him, we'll go to the right to balance it".

It's 4 years since I was living in the USA; I saw Fox News Channel then, and dismissed it along with the fundamentalist Christian channels. I still find it hard to believe that some people think that CNN is liberal - I saw the American version of that this February, and couldn't believe how pro-war it was. There's a classic episode of the British spoof news programme "The Day Today" from the mid 90's, in which the news channel engineers a war between Australia and Hong Kong, because their reporters are all ready. Apart from the US (and UK) government being the cheerleaders for war in reality, it was unbelievable how close CNN was to the spoof. For a transcript, see http://www.koekie.org.uk/funnel/tdt/tdt5.html
(search for 'Australia', but the rest of it is worthwhile too). I hate to think what it would be like to rely on Fox for all your news; a bit like another British spoof, I suppose: one the web called "Daily Mail Island", where a reality show strands people on an island with only the right-wing tabloid "Daily Mail" to read. "Lord of the Files" ensues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enraged American Donating Member (276 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-14-03 06:38 AM
Response to Original message
18. Mansoor Ijaz LMAO!
I'll bet all the crazy freeping neocons who watch faux will think Ijaz is right and knows more than anyone else because he's an arab.

"oh he's an arab. he must be telling the truth"

Faux is pathetic. There was no connection between Hussein and Bin Laden.

Hussein = isolated secular Arab socialist nationalist
Bin Laden = fanatic who has close ties to the Saudi monarchy and the CIA

Why would Saddam Hussein get his feet wet by selling weapons to Al-Qaeda? That's just illogical. He doesn't need the money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Jul 27th 2014, 11:42 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC