Bush Kerry Blair masters of sex

[Brino]

Now, the last time i checked, you don't get paid unless you show up for work... or am i wrong on that? anyone not go to work and get paid??? and bush has pulled out his old pay stubs formt he army proving he wasnt AWOL, and me spouting the same rhetoric stuff as bush.... are you not spouting things that have been proven false? pay stubs i thought cleared up the whole mess with him supposedly being AWOL, but i guess there are some who just wont accpet the truth, and those are the most ignorant of us, those are mainly Demecrats....

What have I said that was proven false, please enlighten me?

What dont you guys get about the fact that Bush isnt like you or me? The same rules dont apply to him because: 1) He comes from a rich family and 2) His dad worked in the CIA and had connections. Is it really that big a leap to think that he got it easy? Look it wouldnt take that much for his dad George Sr. to get the Guard to take it easy on him and pay him even though he wasnt there. For crying out loud, there is a 50,000$ reward for anybody who could prove that they saw Bush in the guard and guess what, nobody's been able to!

I just noticed... I cant open any of Kerry's records.....bush's i can, but kerry remains a mystery, jsut liek on many isues, but i wonder why over 250 of his fellow servicemen that served with him do not want him commander and cheif? and 4-5 ,omths in swift boats, going into camboadia in 68....or was it 72 last time it was seered into his mind????

Their in pdf format! If you cant open them then that's your problem! First of all most military people are conservative to begin with but not all. Second, a lot of people who served in Vietnam are angry at Kerry for speaking out against the war, that's why their not voting for him. There is something called freedom of speech in this country but unfortunately there are some people who criticize Kerry for speaking his mind and that in my opinion is un-patriotic!

and as for that site, dont ya think it is meant to cast an evil light on our president? instead ofsimply putting down the facts and letting people decide. But, wasnt clinton a Draft Dodger? so serving your country, even though not at the front, is an improvement over the former administration. but i do not think 4 months and a record of voting against many weapons and fighters that are top of the line makes a good president.

That site is laying down the facts. Everytime somebody or something portrays Bush in a bad light you say that its partisan bullshit but it isnt, you just cant accept the truth. And about weapons that Kerry voted against, first of all Cheney and many other republicans voted against them as well, second he voted against them nearly ten years ago and hasnt voted against weapon systems since 1996, third Kerry himself has said that the kind of thinking that made him vote against weapons so long ago doesnt work in the post 9/11 world and he wouldnt vote against them today!

Kerry flips on way to much stuff. he has said we went in alone, yet we have many allies. besides though other countries who want kerry in, think they will get included in the stuff, but thy dont relize, that a strong America keeps them from going broke, and if they come with us, kerry will make them do mroe work cause America is not strong enough, and on top of that, the DNC said bush wanted to bring back the draft. how would he do that? people would revolt if anyone tried that.

There are so many false and misleading statements here that I dont even know where to begin. First, Saying that we have allies in Iraq is really a hollow statement, what are there 30 of them, only a handful of which have more than a hundred troops in Iraq and only Great Britain has more than a thousand and even they only have 8,000 there! Plus a lot of the countries that are on the list arent even providing troops! How can you say that we have allies in Iraq when 90% of the casualties are American?

Second, Kerry doesnt flip nearly as much as Bush. First Bush was against homeland security and then for it, first he was against the 9/11 commission and then for it, first he was against the creation of an intelligence czar and then for it, he said we would only ivade Iraq as a last resort yet he invaded Iraq the first chance he got, he said he would leave no child behind and yet he left millions of children behind. Need I go on?

Third, How does a strong America keep foreign countries from going broke and how exactly does invading Iraq make America stronger?

Fourth, In case you havnt noticed there's already a backdoor draft going on!

And do you really beleive that Kerry is respected? the guys is awesome to watch when you feeling good, he'll bring ya down a few notches with his pessimistic attitude. Besides, Its been demecrats who won't let people drill for oil in Alaska that makes us dependent on foriegn countries.

Kerry is not pessimistic he's realistic! Kerry is the one that's thinking about our future while Bush is invoking emotional responses from people so that they wont think about our future and where were heading under his presidency, and I got news for ya, were not heading anywhere good under his presidency!

But i would take Bush over kerry because I know that Bush would amke good decisions and not wait on the French to give the Ok to React, Iraq is a success no doubt there, They are being Liberated(civi's) and occupied(terrorist), so the terrorist are flooding in there, and we fight them at there homes, and not at our homes. IF we pulled out, or never went in at all, we would have bombs going off like crazy. Japan had the balls and did not bend to the terrorist will, although there families may hate the governemtn now, how many attacks have they averted in not doing what the terrorist wanted? Spain pulled out and look at what kindof government they elected.

Iraq didnt attack us, Osama bin laden did and he's in Afganistan or Pakistan! How do you know that bombs would be going off if we didnt invade Iraq? That's a bullshit statement, bombs are already going off and we did invade Iraq! Iraq is NOT a success, how could any informed preson say that? Each month more troops die than the prevoius month! The CIA has even said that best case scenario things there keep going the way there going and worse case scenario is civil war! It is not a success! Do you know what the best selling video in Iraq is, I'll tell ya, it's the videos of americans being beheaded! How could you possibly say it's a success?

And if you think that Bush will make good decisions then you are seriously wrong! What the hell was Iraq? That wasnt a "good" decision and neither has anything else under this president been a "good" decision!

Now, when people make the government take care of the people, do you know what that is called? its called Communism, Demecrats are for people being on the government payroll, Welfare, Social Security, and many other government programs, there is just one path that leads to.... take a guess, its called one moves into power and becomes a dictator, one that has been lusting for power for a long time. My Prediction is it will be someone who has liberal views, hate to say it, but it wont be long before we have terrorist attacks if Kerry is elected.

Boy what a load of bullshit! You dont like Democrat policies so you imply that we're Communist! Either your so misinformed about the democrats policies that you think their communists or you just dont know what communism is! You seriously need to open your eyes and go back to school. Maybe you'll learn a thing or two.

 

[Dolman]

Brino:

You are severely misinformed if you dont see any positives from the war in iraq. Yes we have lost soldiers. Unfortunately that happens in a war.

But (as far as I know) we STILL have lost less than half the amount that were killed in 911.

I am sure they ARE looking for osama. But it's no secret that there was/is a connection between saddam and alkida.

This isn't Bush's war. Damn near half of the population AGREES with him and supported his decision.


It is ridiculous how biased the majority of media is. If all the news on TV showed BOTH sides of the story, there would be alot less people around hating Bush.


And as a final note...I think it still boils down to the fact that neither you nor I can say too much about what is going on, because we dont have all the facts. We discussed this in the other thread, and of course, you all bitched saying "we the people, should always know whats going on. It's not right for the government to hold secrets from us"

But it IS like that. You don't know who took part in the decision to go to war with Iraq. You don't know all the motives they had, and you don't know what they know about Iraq. Maybe you find that sad, but it is the truth. The government has always been like this, so don't act like its some Bush thing.

 

[Dolman]

And if you think that Bush will make good decisions then you are seriously wrong! What the hell was Iraq? That wasnt a "good" decision and neither has anything else under this president been a "good" decision!

You are a staunch democrat. 'Another' thing that proves my point on democrats vs. republicans.

You dont like the war in Iraq? FINE. I serverely disagree with you, but FINE, it is your opinion.

BUT to say that he hasn't made ANY good decisions just shows your intelligence Brino. I don't think people like you deserve to take part in a discussion/arguement. You are 100% for 'your' guy, and 100% against the other guy.

One thing is for sure, if Kerry gets elected, I'M SURE HE WILL DO SOME GOOD THINGS. I don't like kerry much, but I'm smart enough to realise that some good things will get done with him in office. THAT, is called being realistic.

Now, let me hear YOU say that you know some good things will get done if bush gets re-elected.

You may not like him but....

-He has more experience than you
-----Not only is he probably older and wiser, but he also has more political experience than you

-He makes thousands of decisions a year. You dont think ANY of those might be for the better?

I ask any democrat to ful-fill my request (Now, let me hear YOU say that you know some good things will get done if bush gets re-elected.) Or any republican to say the same about Kerry

Because a true close minded person would not be able to do this.

 

[Brino]

Brino:

You are severely misinformed if you dont see any positives from the war in iraq. Yes we have lost soldiers. Unfortunately that happens in a war.

But (as far as I know) we STILL have lost less than half the amount that were killed in 911.

I am sure they ARE looking for osama. But it's no secret that there was/is a connection between saddam and alkida.

This isn't Bush's war. Damn near half of the population AGREES with him and supported his decision.

How can you possibly say that I'm misinformed when you still think that there was a connection between Saddam and Al Quieda? Where's the proof, where's the connection? Please tell me, please prove to me your right. The 9/11 commission, a bipartisan commission who had far more access and intelligence than you or I, said that there was NO connection between Saddam and Osama. Please read their book and inform yourself!

Damn near half the population supports the war because, like you, they've been mis-informed. I'm sure that near half the population supported the Vietnam war when it began and look what happened with that. Dont let the same thing happen with Iraq!

is ridiculous how biased the majority of media is. If all the news on TV showed BOTH sides of the story, there would be alot less people around hating Bush.

No there wouldnt! The media isnt biased, it's lazy! All they do is report the same things that their told,and on the occasion that they actually report something valid, they screw it up! The CBS incident is a perfect example, Dan Rather was to busy worrying about being the first to break a story that he didnt actually look in to wheter it was true or not! And on the rare incident that the media is really biased, it turns out to be like FoxNews.

And as a final note...I think it still boils down to the fact that neither you nor I can say too much about what is going on, because we dont have all the facts. We discussed this in the other thread, and of course, you all bitched saying "we the people, should always know whats going on. It's not right for the government to hold secrets from us"

But it IS like that. You don't know who took part in the decision to go to war with Iraq. You don't know all the motives they had, and you don't know what they know about Iraq. Maybe you find that sad, but it is the truth. The government has always been like this, so don't act like its some Bush thing.

First of all,I know enough about the motive to go to war to know that we fucked it up! Second, I never bitched about the government hiding things from us, that was somebody else. Third, your the one that always says the government hides things from us so why do you believe everything they say?

 

[Brino]

You are a staunch democrat. 'Another' thing that proves my point on democrats vs. republicans.

You dont like the war in Iraq? FINE. I serverely disagree with you, but FINE, it is your opinion.

BUT to say that he hasn't made ANY good decisions just shows your intelligence Brino. I don't think people like you deserve to take part in a discussion/arguement. You are 100% for 'your' guy, and 100% against the other guy.

One thing is for sure, if Kerry gets elected, I'M SURE HE WILL DO SOME GOOD THINGS. I don't like kerry much, but I'm smart enough to realise that some good things will get done with him in office. THAT, is called being realistic.

Now, let me hear YOU say that you know some good things will get done if bush gets re-elected.

You may not like him but....

-He has more experience than you
-----Not only is he probably older and wiser, but he also has more political experience than you

-He makes thousands of decisions a year. You dont think ANY of those might be for the better?

I ask any democrat to ful-fill my request (Now, let me hear YOU say that you know some good things will get done if bush gets re-elected.) Or any republican to say the same about Kerry

Because a true close minded person would not be able to do this.

Your point is so flawed that it's mind-boggling! You complain about democrats attacking Bush yet republicans did the same thing to Clinton!

Ofcourse Bush will do some, and I stress the word some, good if he got re-elected, but that's not the point. You dont elect somebody because they'll do "some" good, you elect them because they'll make this country better. Bush has done some good but the bad that he's done far outweigh the good, that's why you shouldnt vote for him.

And dont get on my case for being partisan. Let me ask you this, have you ever once voted for a democrat, even once? If you havnt then you have no right to criticize me for being partisan!

 

[Dolman]

Both al-Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence officers reportedly backed Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist militia fighting U.S.-backed Kurds who opposed Saddam Hussein’s government. In the 2003 Iraq war, U.S. warplanes destroyed the Ansar camps in northeastern Iraq.

In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the U.N. Security Council that Iraq was harboring a terrorist cell led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected al-Qaeda affiliate and chemical and biological weapons specialist. Powell said Zarqawi had both planned the October 2002 assassination of a U.S. diplomat in Jordan and set up a camp in Ansar al-Islam’s territory in northeastern Iraq to train terrorists in the use of chemical weapons. Powell added that senior Iraqi and al-Qaeda leaders had met at least eight times since the early 1990s.

Beyond that, some Iraq-watchers suspect that al-Qaeda members attended Iraq’s Salman Pak terrorist training camp. Widely circulated reports said that Muhammad Atta, a mastermind of the September 11 attacks, met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague. And fleeing al-Qaeda members reportedly took refuge in Iraq. But U.S. officials say they doubt that the Atta meeting took place, and many experts and State Department officials say that any al-Qaeda presence in Iraq probably was in northern regions of the country beyond Saddam’s control. Some analysts say there was scant evidence of ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam’s secular regime, a claim supported by the lack of such evidence found after Saddam’s downfall. The CIA in May 2003 began an internal review of prewar intelligence reports, including those related to suspected connections between Iraq and terrorism.

* Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.
* Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.
* Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.
* An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.
* In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

* In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.
* Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.

* An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"

* In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

*The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

* Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.

* In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.

* That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.

* Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.

*Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.

* Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."

* Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

* Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.

* Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.

* Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."

Now, from what we (the public) knows, I dont think there are any FACTS to say there was a connection, or wasn't. Unfortunately, there are only a few people in the world that know for sure.


And lets not forget your beloved Clinton, is the one who first started claiming the connection between the two.

The point remains, whether or not there actually is/was a connection, WHAT WE KNEW BEFORE THE WAR was reason enough to go to war.
I still dont see how you can place all the blame on Bush, when his information comes from OTHERS in the government. The same people that would have informed Kerry. And, as stated earlier, there very well could be secrets we do not know about all this.

 

[Dolman]

No there wouldnt! The media isnt biased, it's lazy! All they do is report the same things that their told,and on the occasion that they actually report something valid, they screw it up! The CBS incident is a perfect example, Dan Rather was to busy worrying about being the first to break a story that he didnt actually look in to wheter it was true or not! And on the rare incident that the media is really biased, it turns out to be like FoxNews.

I'll agree that the media may be lazy and report on the same thing based on what they are told to do, but I can't believe you dont see the Bias.

Lets walk through this: (again)

I would venture to say TV is easily the most influential form of media and news in general, at this point in time. Now, lets go through the stations

NEUTRAL: Foxnews

Liberal Bias: (this is just the main ones)
CBS
NBC
ABC
MSNBC
CNN

First of all,I know enough about the motive to go to war to know that we fucked it up!

How?! I dont think you proved anything yet.

Second, I never bitched about the government hiding things from us, that was somebody else

I apologize.

. Third, your the one that always says the government hides things from us so why do you believe everything they say?

I certainly don't believe everything they say. My main point here is

-Bush is only a small fraction of the amount of people that played a part in us going to war
-The government, and the people who inform Bush, know more than we do. Guaranteed. ITS THEIR FUCKING JOB. We just listen to the news and read the papers about it

Therefor, EVEN IF the war was a total mistake, I don't think we should place all the blame on the president who was simply mis-informed.

And dont get on my case for being partisan. Let me ask you this, have you ever once voted for a democrat, even once? If you havnt then you have no right to criticize me for being partisan!

This is the first election I've been old enough to vote, so no I've never voted for a dem.

The only reason I'm calling you a partisan is based on what you said.

and neither has anything else under this president been a "good" decision!

 

[Brino]

A lot of the stuff you quoted was from Powell's address to the U.N. which even Powell apologized for and said was false or not proven. As for the rest of it:

"Collaborative Relationship?"

(From "Overview of the Enemy," Staff Statement no. 15 )

Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein's secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.

Bad Czech Report?

(From "Outline of the 9/11 Plot," Staff Statement no. 16 )

We have examined the allegation that Atta (Mohamed Atta, one of the 9/11 pilots) met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague on April 9. Based on the evidence available including investigation by Czech and U.S. authorities plus detainee reporting we do not believe that such a meeting occurred. The FBI’s investigation places him in Virginia as of April 4, as evidenced by this bank surveillance camera shot of Atta withdrawing $8,000 from his account. Atta was back in Florida by April 11, if not before. Indeed, investigation has established that, on April 6, 9, 10, and 11, Atta’s cellular telephone was used numerous times to call Florida phone numbers from cell sites within Florida. We have seen no evidence that Atta ventured overseas again or re-entered the United States before July, when he traveled to Spain and back under his true name. Shehhi (Marwan al Shehhi, another 9/11 pilot), on the other hand, visited Cairo between April 18 and May 2. We do not know the reason for this excursion.

None of the Sept. 11 terrorists were Iraqi. No evidence has been provided that Iraq had ties to al-Qaida that differed from those of any other Arab nation.

 

[Brino]

Hey pornman123,

Since you think Democrats are Communists then here's a site You Might enjoy: http://communistsforkerry.com/

 

[Brino]

NEUTRAL: Foxnews

Liberal Bias: (this is just the main ones)
CBS
NBC
ABC
MSNBC
CNN

You and I both know that FoxNews is not Neutral. As for the others, I understand why you think CBS is Liberal but please tell me why you think the others are liberal. I for one always thought that CNN was Neutral or as close to it as you can get.

 

[Dolman]

You and I both know that FoxNews is not Neutral. As for the others, I understand why you think CBS is Liberal but please tell me why you think the others are liberal. I for one always thought that CNN was Neutral or as close to it as you can get.

Here is some links for CNN:
http://isntapundit.com/?date=20031216#dipnut_144951

http://www.thebatt.com/news/2003/11/14/MailCall/Cnn-Admitted.Biased.Reporting-558432.shtml

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Media Watch/Protesting CNN for its biased coverage.htm

http://www.opinionet.com/article.php?id=1144


There's a few. I didn't have much time to find any, or read through all of them at this point, so....

I found some surveys somewhere that showed percentages, of what people thought. Basically it showed that most people believe the major news stations are biased towards kerry, with Fox being biased towards bush. I don't know where it is right now, but its not a big deal. I think it's pretty evident among both parties that there is a bit of a bias going on with tv media, but it's another one of those things that cant really be blatantly proven. Cause your always going to have the some liberals saying 'its not biased at all', and some conservatives saying 'is it too'.

 

[Brino]

Yeah but when you actually think of CNN's reporters and who they are you come up with Hardcore Conservatives and Hardcore Liberals. Crossfire for instance has some of the best known Conservatives in News with Robert Novak and Tucker Carlson. I'm sure I could think of well known conservatives on other news networks as well. :2 cents:

btw Your not going to find a network with unbiased news anchors so when you look for a network that is fair and balanced you have to look for networks that show both points of view and in my opinion CNN does that best.