Fox news at it again

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBig928zYgY

I don't trust news much from any channels...I have started to watch youtube to get the real uncensored truth. TheYoung Turks is my news channel.

BTW here is where they talk about this study

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBA61YrA68Q

That would make sense... if you ignored the fact that they found actual chemical weapons labs.

So clearly not all of it was old.

well as true as it is do you really need the study to tell you wht you already know? i think not!

If you read the letter referenced in the first video, the delivery of this letter from the ACLU could be seen as a warning (or threat) against the celebration of any non-secular element of Christmas within a public school. It might not have spelled it out entirely, but I doubt anyone would argue that there was another message that was intended to be delivered in the letter.

Bill O'Reilly certainly over-stated what was in the letter to the extent that he was misleading individuals; but the video you posted understated what as in the letter to the extent that it was misleading to individuals. In both cases the misrepresentation takes on different forms for a different purpose; and I don't think either was really all that interested in informing anyone about the true content of the letter as much as they were using the letter to attack political opponents.

A)  Really?  What your claiming (that WMD were found, even if not at the levels that would make it relevant to any substantive discussion about the war), makes it a non-starter.  If someone answers that no WMD were found in Iraq, then to say they are wrong because it is not "technically" correct, is missing the point.  There were no WMDs in Iraq as it was laid out in the justification for the war.  Bias is trying to pigeon hole finding mustard gas as relevant.

B) OK, your way off here.  By all reports, all Irag weapons programs were in decline since the end of desert storm.  To say he jumped the gun is just not accurate.

C) It's as valid a comparison as saying finding mustard gas is the same as finding the WMDs we where told existed prior to the war.

This was my point about the article being vague. It says they came across a house with a chemical lab and found some substances. This is hardly proof of WMDs. The chemcial lab could easily be an old chemical lab in dis-repair. There is just no context to the quote to make a claim either way. Point being, without more info, the lab could have been built anytime, pre or post-invasion. Needless to say, the article also does not specify what types of "substances" were found, so this makes the conclusion that there were WMDs even more difficult to reach. As noted in the article concerning other cases, the substances found could have been a "false alarm" and turned out to be something not related to chemical weaponry. The substances also could have also just fit the bill of being degraded and decayed chemical substances. There just isn't enough info to make a claim.

The main point I was trying to originally get across was what the npr interviewee mentioned about differentiating between local hazards and mass destruction. Namely, a WMD does not just need to be a chemical, biological, or chemical weapon, it also need to be capable of mass destruction. Given the wikileaks article, the interview, and other sources I have looked at, I just don't see sufficient evidence that there were weapons capable of this type of damage.

That's why I said the question, "Were WMDs found in Iraq?" is misleading. The term WMD is ambiguous, and people use the term differently. As an obvious example, it is clear that the US/UN weapons inspector is using a different defintion of WMDs than the wikileaks author. Better questions would be like, "Were nuclear weapons found in Iraq?", "Were chemical weapons found in Iraq?", "Did Saddam have plans to start a nuclear program?". At least to me, these questions are clearer and assess knowledge better than asking whether there were WMDs in Iraq.

A) What the hell are you talking about here?  Do you even know what the "Were WMDs found in Iraq" question is related to?  It has ZERO to do with any justifacation for the war.  Which i've stated probably a dozen times already.

B)  So you didn't look at what I posted then?  Also your ignoring the fact they kept stuff that should of been destroyed, espiecally matieral that's basically only used for nuclear weapons or nuclear power. 
  
C)  That's not what i said.  The point was, which you keep missing due to your immense politcal bias is that people will answer that question no because it isn't the same weapons as WMDs that bush thought existed, even though the answer is YES.

Anyone including you who said NO.  Would infact be wrong and therefore would be rated as being misinformed due to the media, which is similar to things like "Has the stimulus saved jobs." 

You've proven my initial point in your complete inability to comprehend what the initial point was.  That people give stupid answers and stupid arguements that rate as wrong, because they feel so storngly about something they feel the wrong answer better represents the truth as they see it then the correct answer.  You keep argueing the answer is No, to a yes or no question I posed which was simply "Were WMD found in Iraq."  There was no mentioning of Anthrax or Nuclear Weapons in their, nor was their mentioning of "if it justifies the war" this is all stuff you've just infered into the question because of your deep intense political feelings on the matter cuasing you to err.

Political Ideology is as polarizing as Religious Ideology.  People will defend their ideology even when logic and facts are contrary to their belief. 

So now putting things in bold makes the points more valid?

My point was that you picked a bad question to demonstate bias.  I would guess that the answer to WMDs in Iraq would be similar no matter the bias of the respondent.  Plus, the questions in the study were much more specific.  It wasn't "Has the stimulus saved jobs", it was "most economists who have studied it estimate that the stimulus legislation saved or created only a few jobs or caused job losses".  To be similar, you woudl have to ask "Were WMD found in Iraq in accordance with the international definition of WMDs" or "Were WMDs found in Iraq as defined by the Bush administration when justifying the war".  The point is that the answer to these two questions are drastically different.  Some would assume you meant the former, some the latter, regardless of bias.

There was also this from the same study, "On other issues most Democrats evidenced misinformation, while this was the case with less than half of Republicans. These were: the belief that it was proven to be true that the US Chamber of Commerce was spending large amounts of foreign money to support Republican candidates (voted Democratic 57%, voted Republican 9%); that Obama has not increased the level of troops in Afghanistan (51% to 39%), and that Democrats in Congress did not mostly vote in favor of TARP (56% to 14%)."

Do you really see bias affecting your answer to: "Most scientists think climate change is not occurring views are divided evenly" or "The bailout of GM and Chrysler occurred under Pres. Obama only (not Bush as well)".

So the claim that this study are bias are coming from people that most likely didn't read the actual study.

the study is obviously bias. Anybody could make a study tailored to get the results they want. Can't the conservatives have one dam news channel. I'm sick and tired of the liberals/ left wing nut jobs constantly going after fox news. You never see any conservatives go after MSNBC are CNN,because nobody really watches there bullshit liberal propaganda. I guess the liberal/left wing nut jobs are really scared of the truth,because the majority of America knows whatever they say makes no sense anyways. That seem's to be there tatic,If you  disagree with me,were going to make fun of you and demonize you and try to distract you from the issues,because the liberals/left wing nut jobs know that they have no legitimate arguments and can't really handle the truth.