FOX News Makes You Ignorant

[Spence]

Researchers from the Program on International Policy Attitudes (a joint project of several academic centers, some of them based at the University of Maryland) and Knowledge Networks, a California-based polling firm, have spent the better part of the year tracking the public's misperceptions of major news events and polling people to find out just where they go to get things so balled up. This month they released their findings, which go a long way toward explaining why there's so little common ground in American politics today: People are proceeding from radically different sets of facts, some so different that they're altogether fiction.

In a series of polls from May through September, the researchers discovered that large minorities of Americans entertained some highly fanciful beliefs about the facts of the Iraqi war. Fully 48 percent of Americans believed that the United States had uncovered evidence demonstrating a close working relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Another 22 percent thought that we had found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And 25 percent said that most people in other countries had backed the U.S. war against Saddam Hussein. Sixty percent of all respondents entertained at least one of these bits of dubious knowledge; 8 percent believed all three.

The researchers then asked where the respondents most commonly went to get their news. The fair and balanced folks at Fox, the survey concludes, were "the news source whose viewers had the most misperceptions." Eighty percent of Fox viewers believed at least one of these un-facts; 45 percent believed all three. Over at CBS, 71 percent of viewers fell for one of these mistakes, but just 15 percent bought into the full trifecta. And in the daintier precincts of PBS viewers and NPR listeners, just 23 percent adhered to one of these misperceptions, while a scant 4 percent entertained all three.

Just thought you'd like to know. (http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/10/meyerson-h-10-16.html)

[jsarno]

and about 50% say the Bush administration is bad.
Damn that fox news for filling minds with dumb thoughts! :D

[Skins57]

Originally posted by jsarno
and about 50% say the Bush administration is bad.
Damn that fox news for filling minds with dumb thoughts! :D

ANother 45 percent know they are bad :D:D

[jsarno]

:lol1:

[Skinzaholic]

"The American Prospect".... a totally biased liberal website who both glamorizes Bill Clinton like he is the second coming of JFK and also reports on the loads of "President's Lies".

Go figure.


(I saw on FOX TV that liberals scored higher on SAT tests... guess your right, they ARE broadcasting non-facts!)

[Spence]

Skinz, you can find that same story in The Washington Post or dozens of other newspapers. I just grabbed that one because I had it handy. The study has nothing to do with The American Prospect. It was conducted by social scientists at the University of Maryland.

[Skinzaholic]

Yes, but you still must view the slant behind the study. Atleast 80% of our higher education facilities are liberally slanted with a humanist point of view thanks to John Dewey via 1935 signed Humanist Manifesto.

The reports go on and on for both sides. Basically these reports always say what the reporter wants them to say.

[Skins57]

Fair and Balanced... what a joke

[Spence]

Originally posted by Skinzaholic
Yes, but you still must view the slant behind the study. Atleast 80% of our higher education facilities are liberally slanted with a humanist point of view thanks to John Dewey via 1935 signed Humanist Manifesto.

The reports go on and on for both sides. Basically these reports always say what the reporter wants them to say. Kevin, if you've got evidence [or even just a good reason to suspect] that the University of Maryland study about FOX News and ignorance of the actual news is biased against FOX News, I'd love to see it. As far as I can tell, the study merely polls various people about what they think they know about Iraq and then asks them where they get their news. The study also shows people who watch CBS News don't know anything. But conservatives always says CBS news is run by librulcommiepinkos. What gives?

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by Skins57
Fair and Balanced... what a joke

Maybe they really strive to be Comedy Central 2..

[Chief Seeway]

This is a serious question. I hope someone will give their opinion.

If someone here or anywhere for that matter doesn't like a certain news channel FOX, CBS, BET, etc... why in the world would one watch them?

[rskinsfan10]

Originally posted by seeway
This is a serious question. I hope someone will give their opinion.

If someone here or anywhere for that matter doesn't like a certain news channel FOX, CBS, BET, etc... why in the world would one watch them?

BET isn't a news channel, but to answer your question, personally, I do not look at channels that I don't like.

[RedskinsDave]

I have been forced to depend on CNN as the major news channel along with the networks for much of my life and then when Fox comes and gives the non-liberal view of the world liberals throw a fit. I'm sorry that Fox ruined the monopoly on news but it's been refreshing for some of us.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I have been forced to depend on CNN as the major news channel along with the networks for much of my life and then when Fox comes and gives the non-liberal view of the world liberals throw a fit. I'm sorry that Fox ruined the monopoly on news but it's been refreshing for some of us.

Refreshing...like a cool dip into the lobotomy pool.

[RedskinsDave]

Thanks for the predictable response.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Thanks for the predictable response.

You are welcome. Anyone who is challenging the finfdings of the report mentioned at the top, how about pointing out the flaws in the methodology, sampling, etc. of the study rather than just say "there goes the liberal universities, press..."? Please explain why it is that the people polled seemed to get thier facts wrong more if they got their news primarily form Fox?

I remember trying to make a point to my fiance about how shabby Fox reporting is. She said that she liked Fox because "they got the story first" most of the time. I replied that this was because they did not really check out stories before they reported them, and many time the result was innacurate reports. At that precise momement (this was during the first few days of the war) the ticker type at the bottom of Fox screen said "Chemical weapons site found". We quickly switched to CNN, MSN, and the others, and the same discovery was billed as "suspected chemical weapons site found". This continued for about a half hour, until the Fox type, withbout explanation, was changed to "suspected..." and then quickly dropped all together. Of course, it turned out that there were no chemical weapons. Easy to see how a dedicated Fox viewer might actually believe that chemical weapons HAD been found.

[RedskinsDave]

Interesting how I was on CNN's site last week and they reported that there was a man and a woman who being sought after in the Cannon Bulding on the Hill and that wasn't true. I guess they were jumping the gun too. Why people act as though Fox is the only news channel to get stuff wrong is mind numbing.

I'm sorry that Fox doesn't walk the liberal media line. It really bothers some people to no end.

[RedskinsDave]

Oh and about the sampling...Why is it that the other news agencies mentioned were CBS and PBS/NPR? Where was CNN? Oh, I'm sure they came in about the same as Fox and therefore didn't fit the "researchers" agenda. Hell, even 70% of those who mentioned CBS as their source said one of the three things was true. There are the flaws I find in the result. I also didn't see any mention of any other statistics (age, income, education) of those interviewed. That would be useful when one is more or less questioning people's intelligence.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Oh and about the sampling...Why is it that the other news agencies mentioned were CBS and PBS/NPR? Where was CNN? Oh, I'm sure they came in about the same as Fox and therefore didn't fit the "researchers" agenda. Hell, even 70% of those who mentioned CBS as their source said one of the three things was true. There are the flaws I find in the result. I also didn't see any mention of any other statistics (age, income, education) of those interviewed. That would be useful when one is more or less questioning people's intelligence.

Besides the fact that you obviously do not like thier findings, why do you feel that the researchers had an agenda?

[RedskinsDave]

As I stated, they compare FOX, CBS and PBS. That's apples, oranges and bananas in my opinion. Where are the CNN viewers? That sample seems conspicuously absent.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Oh and about the sampling...Why is it that the other news agencies mentioned were CBS and PBS/NPR? Where was CNN? Oh, I'm sure they came in about the same as Fox and therefore didn't fit the "researchers" agenda. Hell, even 70% of those who mentioned CBS as their source said one of the three things was true. There are the flaws I find in the result. I also didn't see any mention of any other statistics (age, income, education) of those interviewed. That would be useful when one is more or less questioning people's intelligence.

Wow. Guess you really know nothing about the survey. The stats cited include SIX networks, including CNN. Statistically, viewers who depend primarily on the other five networks (besides Fox) had fewer misperceptions than FOx viewers. The study also did sub-samples adjusting for education and party affiliation. Still, Fox viewers had more misperceptions. I.E. Republicans who primarily viewed Fox had more misperceptions than those who went elsewhere. Similar results when adjusting for education, and whether the viewer supported Bush or not. Assuming that people need to get information from SOMEWHERE to form their opinions or ideas of fact, does it not make sense that more innacurate sources will result in more misperceptions? If not, than why are you concerned about "liberal press"?

I know all you really want is a "fair and balanced" report, so take a look at the study itself:

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

[RedskinsDave]

If you tell me that you don't think this survey was politically motivated or slanted, then we can stop talking now. I did get a kick out of one of the survey question's ability to come up with 101% of the CBS viewers.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
If you tell me that you don't think this survey was politically motivated or slanted, then we can stop talking now. I did get a kick out of one of the survey question's ability to come up with 101% of the CBS viewers.

I don't think so. What do you see here that is slanted? How would showing that Fox viewers have more misconceptions than others be considered slanted? Are you implying that the researchers have something against Fox? If so, what do you think it is?

As far as the 101% thing, who cares? Studies have all kinds of minor rounding errors. To be honest, pointing something like that out seems similar to a ot of efforts made by conservatives to re-direct attention away from the actual issue, discredit by focusing on minor inconsistency rather than the gist of the data.

[RedskinsDave]

"To be honest, pointing something like that out seems similar to a ot of efforts made by conservatives to re-direct attention away from the actual issue, discredit by focusing on minor inconsistency rather than the gist of the data."

You mean like when the DNC, CNN and all other Clinton lackeys steered away from the "president lying under oath" issue and instead reported the whole story as "the president's private life"?

As far as the 101% thing, there is nothing as important as the numbers, especially when they are talking about misperceptions. I must have missed something but I was told that 100% equals a whole sample. Maybe I am misinformed.

[Ford]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
You mean like when the DNC, CNN and all other Clinton lackeys steered away from the "president lying under oath" issue and instead reported the whole story as "the president's private life"?


While republicans are still complaining about what happened under Clinton's desk, Bush is telling us all kinds of great stories about Saddam's attempts to obtain enriched uranium and all the chemical weapons he most definitely has which we will find ... right. Which fabrication seems more important to you?

[RedskinsDave]

It's pretty funny that you did exactly what I was saying. You say Republicans are complaining about what happened under Clinton's desk when that wasn't the impeachable offense.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
"To be honest, pointing something like that out seems similar to a ot of efforts made by conservatives to re-direct attention away from the actual issue, discredit by focusing on minor inconsistency rather than the gist of the data."

You mean like when the DNC, CNN and all other Clinton lackeys steered away from the "president lying under oath" issue and instead reported the whole story as "the president's private life"?

As far as the 101% thing, there is nothing as important as the numbers, especially when they are talking about misperceptions. I must have missed something but I was told that 100% equals a whole sample. Maybe I am misinformed.

Ok, numbers are paramount. All the numbers show that Fox viewers, taking into account education, party affiliation, and support for the president, are more misinformed than viewers of the other networks. You originally complained that "Where was CNN? Oh, I'm sure they came in about the same as Fox and therefore didn't fit the "researchers" agenda." Please, comment on your view now that that (misinformed) belief has been debunked. You also discussed the shortcomings of not adjusting for certain variables, some of which were, education most importantly, were taken into account. So?

The point of the whole article was not about the viewers intelligence, but rather that those who depended on Fox primarily were wrong more than those depending on any other network, even when education levels were taken into account.

Why not explain why you think the researchers are biased against Fox? What in the world does Clinton have to do with this study?

[RedskinsDave]

I didn't see where there was any adjustment based on education level.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I didn't see where there was any adjustment based on education level.

There is a short mention about education's effect in general, not really segmented among viewers of each network. There was an interesting note, however, that the more attention a Fox viewer paid to the news, the more misperceptions they had, while the opposite was true for print media and to a lesser degree CNN. Other sources were found to have no more or less misperceptions based on the amount of attention they paid to the news.

Look, there is no issue here that Fox viewers had more misperceptions, so what is your opinion about why, are the viewers less intelligent or does Fox get the "facts" wrong more than the others? The study implies the latter, do you fell it is the former?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I didn't see where there was any adjustment based on education level.

Dave:

Also, I am really interested in why you think this study was somehow out to "get" Fox. Why do you feel that way? If you explain. maybe I can see where you are coming from.

[RedskinsDave]

I've watched Fox plenty and do not hold any of the misperceptions listed, especially that the rest of the world supported an invasion. That one I don't get. Fox spent more time than anyone lambasting France and others for not supporting the war.

I think this study was predestined based on the administration and the issues at hand. Being that the misperceptions are being started by the administration and Fox is less inclined to spend all their time refuting them, then clearly their viewers will accept the admins assertions. I think it's alot more that the viewers accept what the admin says more than Fox reporting incorrectly.

The reason I brought up Clinton is because it shows my point of political slant on how a story is portrayed. Most of the media except Fox concentrated on Clinton's right to a private life and Fox concentrated on the fact that he lied under oath. On top of that, the polls they used never asked solely about him lying but always included some twist on his "personal life" or a variation of that.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I've watched Fox plenty and do not hold any of the misperceptions listed, especially that the rest of the world supported an invasion. That one I don't get. Fox spent more time than anyone lambasting France and others for not supporting the war.

I think this study was predestined based on the administration and the issues at hand. Being that the misperceptions are being started by the administration and Fox is less inclined to spend all their time refuting them, then clearly their viewers will accept the admins assertions. I think it's alot more that the viewers accept what the admin says more than Fox reporting incorrectly.

The reason I brought up Clinton is because it shows my point of political slant on how a story is portrayed. Most of the media except Fox concentrated on Clinton's right to a private life and Fox concentrated on the fact that he lied under oath. On top of that, the polls they used never asked solely about him lying but always included some twist on his "personal life" or a variation of that.

A couple of comments here:

First, I really think one of the things us lefties feel about Fox is that not only are they slanted, they will misreport the news, either on purpose or just because they are shoddy. The fact that those who watch Fox more have more misperceptions (again, this is about sampling a population, not about one particular individiual) sort of bears out that Fox gets it wrong a lot of the time, or more than other networks. Isn't it the media's job to point out when misnformation is being diseminated by the administration, and if so, why doesn't Fox feel they should point out the truth?

Second, even us Clinton supporters are pissed that CLinton had sex and then lied about it. We are sincere, however, when we say that in the grand scheme of things, so what? How concerned was I that Clinton lied to avoid having trouble with his wife? Not much. I am far more concerned when a President lies, or is too misinformed himself to lay out the facts, concerning issues which cost lives, money, causes voters to act without accurate info, etc. In other words, when the lies affect our lives, the country's health, and the general well being of America and the world, that is when I become concerned. And I am concerned now. How did Clinton's BJ adversely affect you, your family, and the world, until the the whole impeachment thing took off?

But back to the main point, I thought this study did a pretty good job of pointing out that Fax viewers, in general, had more misperceptions about some well founded truths than those who went elsewhere.

[RedskinsDave]

Like I said before, I think it is more than Fox hasn't harped on the admin being wrong more than they are reporting falsely.

I can't argue with the fact that Fox viewers were more misinformed but it does make me wonder why CBS was so high as well. I think it may be the same reason as I stated in that they haven't spent so much time talking about it.

Tell me this though, do you think CNN, NBC and ABC are unbiased?

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Like I said before, I think it is more than Fox hasn't harped on the admin being wrong more than they are reporting falsely.

I can't argue with the fact that Fox viewers were more misinformed but it does make me wonder why CBS was so high as well. I think it may be the same reason as I stated in that they haven't spent so much time talking about it.

Tell me this though, do you think CNN, NBC and ABC are unbiased?

I think Fox is the most biased of the bunch. The others may not be perfect, but at least appear to try to be factual and not biased. All seem to go with the flow more than I'd like to see.

[RedskinsDave]

That's the problem. We have been subjected to "mainstream" media for so long that most never realized how slanted to the left it was until Fox came in and showed us. There's a reason they have more viewers.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
That's the problem. We have been subjected to "mainstream" media for so long that most never realized how slanted to the left it was until Fox came in and showed us. There's a reason they have more viewers.

I see it completely differently (no surprise there). I feel the mainstream media is basically the source of objective reporting, which happens to frequently cast the current administration in a poor light because of the lies, half truths, etc. being sold to us. If Fox is the only one who has it right, how do you explain the findings of the study, which idicates that Fox viewers on the whole seem to be more mis-informed about facts, in the studies case the three very simple, uncomplicated ones put forth?

Bottom line is you are saying all networks are somehow colluding to give a false impression, and Fox is the only champion of the truth? Ludicrous. Fox is slanted to the right regardless of truth, the others while flawed strive for honest, objective reporting.

[RedskinsDave]

I'm not saying that at all. The Iraq thing aside, the networks and CNN don't need to collude. They are liberally biased whether you think so or not. This has been proven over and over again. I don't think Fox is any champion of truth but at least they give the other side's view. Until 1996, the only news reported in this country on the tube was from a liberal view. Now that the other side is being reported, the attacks on Fox are non-stop.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I'm not saying that at all. The Iraq thing aside, the networks and CNN don't need to collude. They are liberally biased whether you think so or not. This has been proven over and over again. I don't think Fox is any champion of truth but at least they give the other side's view. Until 1996, the only news reported in this country on the tube was from a liberal view. Now that the other side is being reported, the attacks on Fox are non-stop.

Proven? Proven how? How in the world do you measure "liberal reporting"? This is a bold statement you make, show me your proof.

[RedskinsDave]

If you are actually going to say that you don't think the networks and CNN lean to left in their reporting, then I don't need to bother. That would be like me saying that Fox doesn't lean right.

Glaring, obvious common sense aside, pick up "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. Yeah that's only one source but it's a good one. He cites plenty of documented reports and common practices which the networks use to prove his assertion.

I do have another question though. Since you are so convinced that Fox reports falsely and that makes them unreliable, how do you feel about the Grey Lady and her repeated lies in print? Maybe the L.A. Times is more your cup of tea.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
If you are actually going to say that you don't think the networks and CNN lean to left in their reporting, then I don't need to bother. That would be like me saying that Fox doesn't lean right.

Glaring, obvious common sense aside, pick up "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. Yeah that's only one source but it's a good one. He cites plenty of documented reports and common practices which the networks use to prove his assertion.

I do have another question though. Since you are so convinced that Fox reports falsely and that makes them unreliable, how do you feel about the Grey Lady and her repeated lies in print? Maybe the L.A. Times is more your cup of tea.

Great, let's make a deal: i'll read that if you read Al Franken's "Lies..."

Grey Lady: Is that the NYT? Tell me what lies.

[RedskinsDave]

If Al Franken writes a book about his field, I'll read it. Goldberg wrote about the industry he works in and Goldberg is not a conservative.

Yeah the Grey Lady is the NY Times and do you actually not know what lies I'm talking about?

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Like I said before, I think it is more than Fox hasn't harped on the admin being wrong more than they are reporting falsely.

I can't argue with the fact that Fox viewers were more misinformed but it does make me wonder why CBS was so high as well. I think it may be the same reason as I stated in that they haven't spent so much time talking about it.

Tell me this though, do you think CNN, NBC and ABC are unbiased? All the networks were clearly biased in favor of the Bush admin on Iraq. Most elite reporters tend to be biased in favor of conservatives on economics and liberals on social issues. Those are personal biases, of course, and may not be reflected in how someone reports the news. Some reporters are influenced by their politics, some are not.

Also, just thought I'd correct the outrageous assertion that the news media thought Bill Clinton was entitled to a private life. You must have been living in a different country during the mid-to-late 1990s. Bill Clinton's private life [both real and in the fevered imaginations of sexually-obsessed right-wing prudes] was on prominent display on all the news networks and every single newspaper and news magazine in the country.

Just thought you'd like to know.

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
If Al Franken writes a book about his field, I'll read it. Goldberg wrote about the industry he works in and Goldberg is not a conservative.

Yeah the Grey Lady is the NY Times and do you actually not know what lies I'm talking about? Uh, actually Bernard Goldberg is an admitted conservative. Don't know where you could have picked up the idea that he is not.

There is no doubt the New York Times has printed some lies lately. Most damagingly, a large number of lies appeared in the New York Times, asserting that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would be welcomed by the entire Iraqi people and that Saddam Hussein possessed tons of weapons of mass destruction. Those lies usually appeared under the byline of Mideast reporter Judith Miller and were fed to her by people like Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, and a close associate of top members of the Bush administration.

Just thought you'd like to know!

[RedskinsDave]

The only reason Clinton's life was on display was because of the illicit nature in which he conducted it and the multiple court actions that followed. Yes, the news reported it but the minute it came to a point where he was actually going to have to pay the piper, they sang a new song. That's when they started the "private life" and "what he does behind closed doors" mantra.

Hey where were all you "what about the people dying" folks when Clinton was bombing Kosovo? (I didn't have a problem with it but I'm not a hypocrite)

[Spence]

Dave, I don't recall the media coming to Clinton's defense at all. The people who defended Clinton were...well, the people. Clinton's popularity went UP during the impeachment proceedings, despite the best efforts of Ken Starr and his lackeys in the national media. And Clinton left office with the highest approval ratings of any departing president on record. Higher than Reagan's, even higher than Eisenhower.

Clinton surived because the people supported him. I know that drives a minority in this country crazy, but the facts are the facts.

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Hey where were all you "what about the people dying" folks when Clinton was bombing Kosovo? (I didn't have a problem with it but I'm not a hypocrite) Depends on what you are talking about, Dave. For example, no Americans died during the Kosovo War. For example, that would mean that no Chinook helicopters were shot down over Kosovo, killing 16 soldiers aboard. That would also mean, for example, that no roadside bombings or rocket-propelled grenades killed any Americans.

So that would be a pretty significant difference, I would think.

I supported the Kosovo War. It was fought for the right reasons and done the right way. President Clinton told the public the truth about Slobodon Milosevic and why he was willing to go to war to stop the massacres of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. You know what the truth is, correct? I mean, for example, President Clinton did not lie and claim that Milosevic possessed tons of chemical and biological weapons. President Clinton didn't lie and claim that Slobodon Milosevic was trying to obtain nuclear weapons. President Clinton told the truth about a murdering dictator and then stopped him. Albanian Kosovars now live in peace and Slobodon Milosevic is on trial for war crimes in the Hague, Netherlands.

Saddam Hussein [you know, the guy who supposedly had all those WMDs we cannot find] is currently on the loose and perhaps directing some of the attacks against our soldiers, who continue to die in Iraq in ever-increasing numbers.

Oh, and remember Osama Bin Laden? You may not, Mr Bush does not talk about him very often. He used to talk about Bin Laden all the time. Not so much any more, though. Pretty much never, actually. Unlike Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden actually was responsible for the 9/11/01 attacks. Mr Bush said he'd get him "dead or alive" you may recall.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure he's still on the loose, too, actually.

[RedskinsDave]

You really think "the people" just went on their own and the media had no influence? Wow, then I need a new cable company because I am missing the stations that didn't do their damnest to re-tell the story once they saw their guy was going to get more than their scraping. Also, this whole thread is proof that people don't think for themselves and rely on their news. THAT is my proof that the media spun Willie out of his own web.

[Spence]

It's okay with me, Dave, if you want to blame the media for that. In fact, I encourage it. I encourage all Republicans and right-wingers to think that. You're wrong, of course, but I encourage Republicans and right-wingers to make mistakes. Always. Usually, they don't need my encouragement, though.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
If Al Franken writes a book about his field, I'll read it. Goldberg wrote about the industry he works in and Goldberg is not a conservative.

Yeah the Grey Lady is the NY Times and do you actually not know what lies I'm talking about?

Al Franken is a writer, comedian, and political commentator. The main thread of the book is to hunt down sources and statistics to disprove Republican lies or half truths. Sure, he had an agenda, just like Goldberg. Franken enlisted a bunch of Harvard students to research facts and sources and disprove what he feels is Republican propaganda with rigorous research of facts. I'd say that he is in his field, but even more to the point, the book is a humerous debunking of Republican myths supported by well researched facts.

And no, I don't know what lies you are talking about. If you are talking about the false stories written by one reporter, I think the Time's reaction when the fabrications became known speaks for itself and the NYT aquitted itself well. If only guys like O'Rielly, when caught in a pure fabrication, could simply say, "yeah, I was wrong, I blew it". 'Skins will be in the Super Bowl before that happens.

[RedskinsDave]

Spence, I don't think that most people are like you and me who, though in contrast most times I'm sure, have the ability to draw our own conclusions about a subject. I think most Americans are mindless lemmings who believe what they are told, be it from a politician or a news source. Although I agree that Starr was overzealous in his pursuit of Clinton, the pure and simple fact that the President lied under oath is pretty disturbing. That doesn't seem to bother liberals in the least, which is equally disturbing.

As far as all the "lies" that are attributed to the Bush administration, they were based on intelligence from our security agencies. I blame them. They weren't just put in office in 2000. Most of the people who work at these places had been in place and had reported the same information to Clinton. He chose to bomb once in a while based on this information. There are reports from Clinton's years that state all of the "lies" that Bush told America. Who knows why they were wrong. It's pretty disturbing but if you think that Bush et. al. knew they were lying the whole time, then I guess you think Clinton was as well. He didn't go to war, but also did not have to preside over 9/11.

Though no Americans died in Kosovo, I'm quite sure some did in Mogadishu. Actually I think there's tape of it somewhere.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Spence, I don't think that most people are like you and me who, though in contrast most times I'm sure, have the ability to draw our own conclusions about a subject. I think most Americans are mindless lemmings who believe what they are told, be it from a politician or a news source. Although I agree that Starr was overzealous in his pursuit of Clinton, the pure and simple fact that the President lied under oath is pretty disturbing. That doesn't seem to bother liberals in the least, which is equally disturbing.

As far as all the "lies" that are attributed to the Bush administration, they were based on intelligence from our security agencies. I blame them. They weren't just put in office in 2000. Most of the people who work at these places had been in place and had reported the same information to Clinton. He chose to bomb once in a while based on this information. There are reports from Clinton's years that state all of the "lies" that Bush told America. Who knows why they were wrong. It's pretty disturbing but if you think that Bush et. al. knew they were lying the whole time, then I guess you think Clinton was as well. He didn't go to war, but also did not have to preside over 9/11.

Though no Americans died in Kosovo, I'm quite sure some did in Mogadishu. Actually I think there's tape of it somewhere.


First of all, of course Americans depend on news outlets for info to form opinions. How else would we learn that an event even took place? I agree that many will then just regurgitate a view espoused by a particualr source. In geneeral, however, I think we can trust those outlets which strive to present the facts as accurately as possible, which I do not think Fox does.

I have to take exception with the assertion that Bush depended on the intellignece of our security agencies. There is loads of evidence that shows the administration specifically ignored intelligence which did not support their platform, or worse, pressured intelligence to alter their reports to better fit their plans. Two examples which immediately come to mind are the yellowcake issue where mention of the alleged transaction were specifically deleted from earlier speeches because they knew the report was false or unsubstantiated, and it eventually made its way into the SOU after an official framed it as "well, is it true that British Intelligence says this happended?" (this after the intelligence itself was debunked) and the way the admin basically forced the EPA to alter its report about air quality at the 9/11 site. Leading up to the war, the administration basically rpomised that they had intelligence "proving" that WMD existed. They have yet to show what they did have in that regard. In my opiion, it is becuase they had nothing or whatever they had have stood up in the light of day.

[RedskinsDave]

"In general, however, I think we can trust those outlets which strive to present the facts as accurately as possible"

We'll have to beg to differ on this. Yeah, when the networks and CNN are reporting about a child in a well or a plane crash, I trust they're accurate. If the subject has any political overtones, they lean to the left.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
"In general, however, I think we can trust those outlets which strive to present the facts as accurately as possible"

We'll have to beg to differ on this. Yeah, when the networks and CNN are reporting about a child in a well or a plane crash, I trust they're accurate. If the subject has any political overtones, they lean to the left.

Hey, I realize we will never see eye to eye on this. From my perspective, it seems that if a news source presents facts which disagree with the administration, tor the conservative stance, they are "left leaning". All I am trying to say is, facts are facts. Prove the facts presented by a source as wrong, then show they were purposely misrepresented in an effort to thwart the conservative agenda if you (general you, not you specifically) want to show the left bias.

Every news outlet has its staight reporting and its editorial/commentary. From a straight reporting standpoint, I still maintain that Fox gets it wrong, or inserts editorial comment, more than the others.

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Though no Americans died in Kosovo, I'm quite sure some did in Mogadishu. Actually I think there's tape of it somewhere. And I'm sure you blame George Herbert Walker Bush for that, don't you? Right? Don't you? After all, he was the president who made the idiotic decision to send our troops to that godforsaken hellhole? So you blame him, right? Right?

[RedskinsDave]

Blood pressure go up a bit there Spence?

Who was in office when it happened? Who? Who? Tell me. Tell me.

[Spence]

Not my blood pressure, Dave. Just both eyebrows.

Clinton was in office during the infamous "Blackhawk Down" episode, which is what I think you are referring to. I think it is rather odd to blame Clinton for military deaths in Somalia, but never mention that it was not his decision to put them there in the first place. To me, it's rather like blaming an infant that is addicted to crack because it's mother smoked it during her pregnancy. U.S. troops had already been in Somalia for two months by the time Bill Clinton was sworn in and the trouble had begun. Eventually, he got us out of there, but not before people died.

I think it is fair to blame presidents if their political decisions lead to unnecessary deaths, but President Clinton made no political decision to send troops to Somalia. He made the political decision to get them out.

[RedskinsDave]

"Clinton also dispatched additional troops to Somalia in October 1993 despite public and congressional uproar over the killing of American soldiers who were part of a United Nations relief effort there"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/42_clinton/

That's from that ultra-conservative PBS.

[Spence]

I don't understand your point, Dave. You're criticizing Clinton for not abandoning George H.W. Bush's moronic policy immediately and pulling troops out of Somalia within days of becoming president? Is that what you're doing?

[RedskinsDave]

They had already begun withdrawing troops before Clinton took office. Actually, there were entire units of Marines flying home a week before the inauguration. They were preparing to hand over the job to the UN. 9 months later, Clinton sent in MORE troops instead of getting the rest out. Personally, I was glad we did but it backfired and our guys got killed.

I know that everything bad during Clinton's tenure was GHW Bush's fault but using a very similar time frame, why do you guys blame GW Bush's folks for 9/11 when Clinton was in office a mere 8 months prior?

[Spence]

Uh, your assertion that the U.S. was pulling out of Somalia when Clinton took office is not correct.

I don't blame Mr Bush for 9/11/01 and I don't know any liberals who do. [I do know quite a few Republicans who blame President Clinton for 9/11/01.] I whole-heartedly supported the invasion of Afghanistan, which was a clear-cut war of self-defense. It's a shame we did not finish the job there and that many troops and specialists were withdrawn from Afghanistan and moved to Iraq when the job was undone. No surprise then that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have been making a comeback recently in Afghanistan.

My beef with Mr Bush is the Iraq War. Like many people, I don't see it as a rational response to the 9/11/01 attacks, since even Mr Bush admits there is no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to those attacks. Furthermore, I don't see it as an efficient use of our resources in the war against international terrorism. Saddam Hussein was no threat to his own neighbors, much less the United States, as our NON-discoveries in Iraq have now made very, very clear. The enormous expense in blood and treasure the Iraq War is causing [and that bill is only beginning to come due] would only be justifiable if the entire project would lead to a victory in the war against terror. Alas, nothing like that will happen. The real threat to the United States, transnational entities like Al Qaeda and Lashkar Jihad, remain undefeated and are growing in strength while we waste time, money, and blood trying to remake the entire Middle East in the image we prefer.

[Ford]

Originally posted by Spence
Uh, your assertion that the U.S. was pulling out of Somalia when Clinton took office is not correct.

I don't blame Mr Bush for 9/11/01 and I don't know any liberals who do.

How about Wesley Clark? Although I suppose he's only been a democrat for a month or two.

[RedskinsDave]

For you Spence:

Troops Leave Somalia (http://the-tech.mit.edu/V112/N66/somalia.66w.html)

The departure of the Marine unit Tuesday appeared designed to coincide with President Bush's last full day in office. Bush had promised to have at least some troops home before he turned the presidency over to Democratic President-elect Bill Clinton.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
For you Spence:

Troops Leave Somalia (http://the-tech.mit.edu/V112/N66/somalia.66w.html)

The departure of the Marine unit Tuesday appeared designed to coincide with President Bush's last full day in office. Bush had promised to have at least some troops home before he turned the presidency over to Democratic President-elect Bill Clinton.

I am sure Spence will respond more eloquently than I, but let me just say; wait a minute, withdrawal of 2% of the force is "significant"? Isn't that part of your point, that Bush I had us on the way out? A 2% reduction on the day he departs sounds a lot like a political move to a jaded observer such as myself.

By the way, didn't some Repub Senator, when Clinton bolstered the Somalian forces, reply to an inquiry that shouldn't he support our Commander in Chief, with "he's not my Commander in Chief"? Can anyone help me out here? Can you imagine the fallout if someone said that about Bush II leading up to the latest war?

[RedskinsDave]

Who said significant? Nice straw man argument you tried there. I said troops were withdrawing. He said they were not.

As far as that Republican Senator, I guess you're implying that I must have agreed with him. Again, nice try.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
Who said significant? Nice straw man argument you tried there. I said troops were withdrawing. He said they were not.

As far as that Republican Senator, I guess you're implying that I must have agreed with him. Again, nice try.

Hey, not trying to be a wise-ass here, but it was my impression that you were making a point that Bush was striving to get us out and Clinton reversed the trend. My point was that the samll withdrawal did not seem to be a real measure of a desire to get out, and that you were making a "straw arguement".

No big deal regarding the quote, did not mean to imply that you agreed, just that there seems to be a double standard when Repubs criticize(d) those who do not support the current war as "treasonous".

[RedskinsDave]

I was making a point about that. There was a plan to get most of our guys out and hand the reigns over to the U.N. Nine months later, we send more guys in and it's a clusterf***.

Like I said, I agreed with sending more guys in. It backfired, it happens. It was under Clinton's guidance all the same regardless of who sent the original troops in.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I was making a point about that. There was a plan to get most of our guys out and hand the reigns over to the U.N. Nine months later, we send more guys in and it's a clusterf***.

I understand the point, but to hold up the puny withdrawal at the time and say "aha, proof of our intent to withdraw most of our troops in the future" is a bit much. The turnover was supposed to happen over three months, and a lot can happen in those three months to change the parameters under which that decision was made. I also tentatively agreed at the time that additional troopws were warrented, so we agree on that. I think the intitial point brought up here was the difference between the honesty Clinton laid forth about why we were going and what Bush II said. In our opinion, Clinton was forthright about the reasons, even though they were tougher to sell to the people. Bush simply said "I am doing it to protect you from weapons we have proof exist and are pointed our way".subvert the ded whithdrawal" is not real

Like I said, I agreed with sending more guys in. It backfired, it happens. It was under Clinton's guidance all the same regardless of who sent the original troops in.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by dukeuch


SOrry, my reply in last post starts "I understaand the point..". and ends "pointed our way." Surrounding text was R-Dave's.

[Spence]

Originally posted by Ford
How about Wesley Clark? Although I suppose he's only been a democrat for a month or two. To the best of my knowledge, General Clark has never blamed Mr Bush for the 9/11/01 attacks. Criticizing Mr Bush's reaction to the attacks is not the same as saying he was to blame for them in the first place.

[Spence]

Firstly, I never said no troops had been withdrawn from Somalia by Bush 1.0. I said the troops had not been withdrawn. That's not the same thing. A significant force still remained in Somalia, the vast majority of the original force, in fact.

Somalia was a catastrophe. It was a terrible decision by George H.W. Bush to send our troops there. If President Clinton tried to bolster the troops there and it didn't work out, I suspect it is more a reflection of a terrible political decision made to put the troops there in the first place.

In any case, this is not a line of argument you want to pursue, Dave. I could always bring up the U.S. Marines who were thoughtlessly dumped in Beirut by President Reagan, with insane orders not to shoot at anyone despite the fact that nearly everyone in Beirut wanted to shoot at them. The results were predictable [241 dead], as was President Reagan's reaction: He retreated from Lebanon faster than moviegoers walking out on that "Bedtime for Bonzo" movie he made while real men were out fighting WW2.

[RedskinsDave]

We can play serve and volley all day but if you want to talk about bad presidential decisions and "real men" fighting, it's 40-love and I have Vietnam ready to serve.

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
We can play serve and volley all day but if you want to talk about bad presidential decisions and "real men" fighting, it's 40-love and I have Vietnam ready to serve. What, you're going to mention that George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, Dan Quayle, etc. etc. etc. supported the war, but didn't have the guts to fight in it?

[RedskinsDave]

I take it those who started the war or protested it yet didn't serve are okay in your book?

[Keino]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I take it those who started the war or protested it yet didn't serve are okay in your book?

I thik he's saying that those who Didn't fight in a war they objected to is not nearly as gutless as Supporting a war but having their parents affluence pull strings so they would not have to actually fight in it.

[RedskinsDave]

And I'm sure that wasn't something that was limited to conservatives.

[Spence]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
I take it those who started the war or protested it yet didn't serve are okay in your book? Of course I blame those who started the war. It's was pretty much a bipartisan affair, with the entire Congress voting to support the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution--which we now know was based on phony facts. Among presidents, Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon deserve most of the blame, though you could go back as far as Kennedy and Eisenhower, when the original committments to South Vietnam were made. Lower down the rung, a host of defense and foreign policy luminaries deserve blame for the Vietnam War.

Do I blame protestors? Not really. They didn't start the war, obviously. I certainly have more respect for people who opposed the war and did not want to fight than I do for people who supported the war as long as other people [meaning blacks and poor whites] were doing the dying for them.

I especially respect the men who could have escaped combat, but chose to serve anyway. Men like Senator John Kerry and Wesley Clark [both Democrats] and Senator John McCain and Senator Chuck Hagel [both Republicans].

[Keino]

Originally posted by RedskinsDave
And I'm sure that wasn't something that was limited to conservatives.

Im not sure anyone said that was limited to conservatives.......

[RedskinsDave]

It was implied by the names listed, except Gramm was a democrat back then. ;)

[Spence]

People who supported the Vietnam War but would not fight in it are overwhelmingly Republicans. People who did NOT support the war and would not fight in it are overwhelmingly Democrats. You can argue that both were wrong, but only one group [the Republicans] are guilty of the ultimate sin: hypocrisy.

[Spence]

Life at Fox News, as told by someone who worked there:From CHARLIE REINA: So Chris Wallace says Fox News Channel really is fair and balanced. Well, I guess that settles it. We can all go home now. I mean, so what if Wallace's salary as Fox's newest big-name anchor ends with a whole lot of zeroes? So what if he hasn't spent a day in the FNC newsroom yet?

My advice to the pundits: If you really want to know about bias at Fox, talk to the grunts who work there - the desk assistants, tape editors, writers, researchers and assorted producers who have to deal with it every day. Ask enough of them what goes on, promise them anonymity, and you'll get the real story.

The fact is, daily life at FNC is all about management politics. I say this having served six years there - as producer of the media criticism show, News Watch, as a writer/producer of specials and (for the last year of my stay) as a newsroom copy editor. Not once in the 20+ years I had worked in broadcast journalism prior to Fox - including lengthy stays at The Associated Press, CBS Radio and ABC/Good Morning America - did I feel any pressure to toe a management line. But at Fox, if my boss wasn't warning me to "be careful" how I handled the writing of a special about Ronald Reagan ("You know how Roger [Fox News Chairman Ailes] feels about him."), he was telling me how the environmental special I was to produce should lean ("You can give both sides, but make sure the pro-environmentalists don't get the last word.")

Editorially, the FNC newsroom is under the constant control and vigilance of management. The pressure ranges from subtle to direct. First of all, it's a news network run by one of the most high-profile political operatives of recent times. Everyone there understands that FNC is, to a large extent, "Roger's Revenge" - against what he considers a liberal, pro-Democrat media establishment that has shunned him for decades. For the staffers, many of whom are too young to have come up through the ranks of objective journalism, and all of whom are non-union, with no protections regarding what they can be made to do, there is undue motivation to please the big boss.

Sometimes, this eagerness to serve Fox's ideological interests goes even beyond what management expects. For example, in June of last year, when a California judge ruled the Pledge of Allegiance's "Under God" wording unconstitutional, FNC's newsroom chief ordered the judge's mailing address and phone number put on the screen. The anchor, reading from the Teleprompter, found himself explaining that Fox was taking this unusual step so viewers could go directly to the judge and get "as much information as possible" about his decision. To their credit, the big bosses recognized that their underling's transparent attempt to serve their political interests might well threaten the judge's physical safety and ordered the offending information removed from the screen as soon as they saw it. A few months later, this same eager-to-please newsroom chief ordered the removal of a graphic quoting UN weapons inspector Hans Blix as saying his team had not yet found WMDs in Iraq. Fortunately, the electronic equipment was quicker on the uptake (and less susceptible to office politics) than the toady and displayed the graphic before his order could be obeyed.

But the roots of FNC's day-to-day on-air bias are actual and direct. They come in the form of an executive memo distributed electronically each morning, addressing what stories will be covered and, often, suggesting how they should be covered. To the newsroom personnel responsible for the channel's daytime programming, The Memo is the bible. If, on any given day, you notice that the Fox anchors seem to be trying to drive a particular point home, you can bet The Memo is behind it.

The Memo was born with the Bush administration, early in 2001, and, intentionally or not, has ensured that the administration's point of view consistently comes across on FNC. This year, of course, the war in Iraq became a constant subject of The Memo. But along with the obvious - information on who is where and what they'll be covering - there have been subtle hints as to the tone of the anchors' copy. For instance, from the March 20th memo: "There is something utterly incomprehensible about Kofi Annan's remarks in which he allows that his thoughts are 'with the Iraqi people.' One could ask where those thoughts were during the 23 years Saddam Hussein was brutalizing those same Iraqis. Food for thought." Can there be any doubt that the memo was offering not only "food for thought," but a direction for the FNC writers and anchors to go? Especially after describing the U.N. Secretary General's remarks as "utterly incomprehensible"?

The sad truth is, such subtlety is often all it takes to send Fox's newsroom personnel into action - or inaction, as the case may be. One day this past spring, just after the U.S. invaded Iraq, The Memo warned us that anti-war protesters would be "whining" about U.S. bombs killing Iraqi civilians, and suggested they could tell that to the families of American soldiers dying there. Editing copy that morning, I was not surprised when an eager young producer killed a correspondent's report on the day's fighting - simply because it included a brief shot of children in an Iraqi hospital.

These are not isolated incidents at Fox News Channel, where virtually no one of authority in the newsroom makes a move unmeasured against management's politics, actual or perceived. At the Fair and Balanced network, everyone knows management's point of view, and, in case they're not sure how to get it on air, The Memo is there to remind them.
Source (http://poynter.org/forum/?id=thememo)

[RedskinsDave]

I was at a job where I thought their ethics were completely reprehensible. I left after 3 months. I see Mr. Whistle Blower was able to take it for 6 years. Yes, I know I'm shooting the messenger. I don't care.

I will stand by my assertion that there needs no prodding at the networks or CNN to present a story in a liberal slant, BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL LIBERALS. Bias is bias. Unless the folks at Fox are told to lie, I could care less that they are pressed to lean conservative. Like I said before, good, we had to wait far too long to get news not tilted left.

[Spence]

Dave, I wish you were right. However, I know too many people in the elite media to fall for the liberal media myth. It isn't true. It never was. And more than ever, it is false now.

I wish there was a liberal media, though. The country would be a lot better for it.

[RedskinsDave]

You can't see the forest for the trees when you're a tree yourself.

[Spence]

Well, Dave, if we have a liberal media [of which I am not a part of even if it does exist], they sure are not doing a very good job. The White House is occupied by a man who did not get the most votes in the last election and he just waged war for reasons that are now revealed to be completely false. And there is little media outrcry about it. Some liberal media.

[higgybaby]

Spence States: and he just waged war for reasons that are now revealed to be completely false.


Was there some kind of news flash that I missed or something, because the last I heard, they are still looking for these weapons and I do believe that Iraq is about the size of California. I do believe that it is still possible that we will find these weapons or find out what has happened to them. But to state that Bush's reasonings for going to War were completely false, seems like you are jumping the gun there a little bit spence.
And if you are referencing the African nuclear story, that is not what this war was based on, but you can continue to rant about that if you like, it just gets old after a while.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by higgybaby
Spence States:


Was there some kind of news flash that I missed or something, because the last I heard, they are still looking for these weapons and I do believe that Iraq is about the size of California. I do believe that it is still possible that we will find these weapons or find out what has happened to them. But to state that Bush's reasonings for going to War were completely false, seems like you are jumping the gun there a little bit spence.
And if you are referencing the African nuclear story, that is not what this war was based on, but you can continue to rant about that if you like, it just gets old after a while.

Well, when the UN inspectors were in there looking for months, the admin ridiculed them and basically said that they were nincompoops, and promised once we had our own folks in, we'd find them pronto. None yet. Would not a logical conclusion be that there are none, or isn't it at least a possibility? Didn't the admin state that there was incontrovertable proof they existed which would soon be shared, which has not yet been shared?

I'll get back to you on the other post, but I gotta go get married later today. Nice priorities, huh?

[higgybaby]

duke, congrats on the day.

[higgybaby]

I'll respond to your accusations later, duke

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by higgybaby
I'll respond to your accusations later, duke

Wouldn't a better word be observations?

[higgybaby]

observations would be appropriate, if I agreed with you. If, I believe your "observations" to be suspect at best(which I do) then no; accusations would be the better word. thanks for the suggestion though.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by higgybaby
observations would be appropriate, if I agreed with you. If, I believe your "observations" to be suspect at best(which I do) then no; accusations would be the better word. thanks for the suggestion though.

Higgy:

I love debating, so I'll focus on the accusations vs. observations. Take a look at the post for my "accusations", and tell me what I stated which is not a fact, or point out what I am actually accusing someone of something. All I said was, 1) the admin accused the UN inspectors of "being nincompoops" because they could not find WMD, 2) that the admin promised that the US would find them quickly once in the country, that we had "incontrovertable proof" of their existence which would eventually be shared, 3) that to date no WMD have been found and this 'incontorvertable proof" has not yet been shared, and that 4) A logical conclusion could be that there are no WMD, or that it is at least possible that there are no WMD. #1-3 are facts. #4 is a statement of opinion, but certainly not an accusation. Just because I don't agree with you on #4 does not make it an accusation. An accusation would be if I said anyone who still believes there are WMD is an idiot.

[higgybaby]

another example of an accusation would be, 1) that the U.S. accused the inspectors of "being nincompoops"; didn't happen(we just did not like the timetable that would be involved in sticking with the inspections prior to the war). Another example of an accusation2) is to say that the admin promised that the US would find them quickly once in the country, also did not happen(there was no timetable anounced saying that we would find them in x amount of time) 3) yes, it is a fact that this info has not been shared yet (are you ready to go out on a limb and say that there will be no evidence provided?) 4) the fact that numbers 1-3 are not facts, does indeed make them accusations, been fun debating with you thus far, come back with something stronger.

[dukeuch]

Originally posted by higgybaby
another example of an accusation would be, 1) that the U.S. accused the inspectors of "being nincompoops"; didn't happen(we just did not like the timetable that would be involved in sticking with the inspections prior to the war). Another example of an accusation2) is to say that the admin promised that the US would find them quickly once in the country, also did not happen(there was no timetable anounced saying that we would find them in x amount of time) 3) yes, it is a fact that this info has not been shared yet (are you ready to go out on a limb and say that there will be no evidence provided?) 4) the fact that numbers 1-3 are not facts, does indeed make them accusations, been fun debating with you thus far, come back with something stronger.

You are just plain wrong. Both Cheney and Rumsfeld had stated at various times that UN Inspectors would provide no level of comfort at all in proving there were not weapons of mass destruction. Richard Perle, a thinly disguised "non-official" (who at the time was an admitted advisor to Rumsfeld) storngly criticized Blix, and WOlfowitz ordered a CIA investigation of Blix's past record of inspections in Iraq in hopes of discrediting him even before the inspections started again 9but the CIA reported back that Blix had doen a good job).

The last round of UN inspections lasted, what, 3 1/2 months? By that time the US just went to war without any proof from the inspectors. That in and of itself shows their vote of non-confidence. The inspectors, without control of Iraq and with Saddam still in power, could not find anything after 3 1/2 months. With Saddam gone, and a lot of info from the UN inspectors, the US has been unable to find any either, in 7 months. Powell indicated that evidence would be uncovered "shortly". If 3 1/2 months was "too long", I would assume they meant in less than that amount of time.

No, they did not say when they would share the info, but they did say they had it, and would share it soon. Well, of course you can't share something as proof unless you can show the WMD.