Fox anchor Megyn Kelly blasts Cheney.

[Ragman]

Fox anchor Megyn Kelly really ripped Cheney a new azz hole. Good for her!

Fox News' Megyn Kelly tells Dick Cheney that history proved he was wrong - UPI.com

 

[WanderngFool]

Doesn't she know what the deal is? First Karl Rove and now Dick Cheney. Either she's got nerve or Fox is laying the groundwork for a new direction now that they've almost single-handedly broken the Republican party in two. I just hope they don't become pro-liberal!!!!!!!!

Here it is with a clip.

Megyn Kelly Confronts Dick Cheney: ?History Has Proven? You Were Wrong on Iraq | Mediaite

 

[davekc]

Oh no....what happened to "fair and balanced"?

 

[Turtle]

Oh no....what happened to "fair and balanced"?

Superseded by "ratings and money".

Ethics and principles can be bought. Megyn "her parents should be slapped for that" Kelly grilling former Republican VP Cheney on Fox News is outrageous. Outrageous sells tickets, puts butts in the seats, garners ratings. Her tongue-in-White-Santa's-Cheek comment (or was it tongue-in-cheek White Santa comment? I get them confused) reinforced that to her and her employer. Millions of people (or at least dozens) who have never watched her will tune in now. Cha-ching!

 

[RLENT]

Concur on the ratings and money ...

Kelly is an interesting case, in terms of the evolution of her on-air persona ...

When she started out on Fox News as a guest, she was mostly pretty level-headed and largely the voice of reason ... a legal beagle ... at least from what I saw.

After she got her own show she become more of drama queen and, at times, borderline hysterical ...

(which is probably quite appealing to a few around here ... lol ...)

Nice to see her challenging Darth Cheney though ...

 

[Ragman]

. Either she's got nerve or Fox is laying the groundwork for a new direction now that they've almost single-handedly broken the Republican party in two.

Yeah, right! The right wing wackos called the tea party had nothing to do with it.

 

[asjssl]

..................

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

 

[skyraider]

..................

Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app

Nice thumbnail, but did anyone see the paid receipts for that war...

 

[layoutshooter]

This is interesting, first thing I have seen on this. I wonder if there is anything behind it?

ISIS In Iraq Find Saddam Hussein’s WMD Stockpiles Of Chemical Weapons… George W Bush Was Right?



"Did the ISIS in Iraq find Saddam Hussein’s WMD stockpiles of chemical weapons? While the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has been confirmed to have seized an old chemical weapons plant there seems to be a dispute over whether or not the remaining tons of chemical weapons like sarin and mustard could still be weaponized into a dangerous form."

http://www.inquisitr.com/1309825/isis-in-iraq-find-saddam-husseins-wmd-stockpiles-of-chemical-weapons-george-w-bush-was-right/

 

[skyraider]

This is interesting, first thing I have seen on this. I wonder if there is anything behind it?

ISIS In Iraq Find Saddam Hussein’s WMD Stockpiles Of Chemical Weapons… George W Bush Was Right?



"Did the ISIS in Iraq find Saddam Hussein’s WMD stockpiles of chemical weapons? While the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria has been confirmed to have seized an old chemical weapons plant there seems to be a dispute over whether or not the remaining tons of chemical weapons like sarin and mustard could still be weaponized into a dangerous form."

http://www.inquisitr.com/1309825/isis-in-iraq-find-saddam-husseins-wmd-stockpiles-of-chemical-weapons-george-w-bush-was-right/

Have no fear, the googalites in here will research this to the last letter, then argue for a 1000 pages on who is correct....................

 

[layoutshooter]

"Have no fear, the googalites in here will research this to the last letter, then argue for a 1000 pages on who is correct...................."


That's why I posted it, the post count has been low of late. It's another 29 years or so until the "rest of the story" come out.

 

[davekc]

"Have no fear, the googalites in here will research this to the last letter, then argue for a 1000 pages on who is correct...................."


That's why I posted it, the post count has been low of late. It's another 29 years or so until the "rest of the story" come out.

Probably so. I have a brother who was there during "Desert Storm" and they did have mustard gas canisters at the border with Kuwait. Most that talk about it have little knowledge of what was really going on there.

 

[layoutshooter]

Probably so. I have a brother who was there during "Desert Storm" and they did have mustard gas canisters at the border with Kuwait. Most that talk about it have little knowledge of what was really going on there.

My son and nephew both seen chemical weapons in Iraq. So did several, but not all, of the vets that I have talked to who were in Iraq. I have run into one, and only one, at the VA in Ann Arbor, who is being treated for exposure to chemical weapons while he was there.

 

[davekc]

Probably will take some time, but there is a lot more that went on over there that isn't discussed. Most rely on journalists that weren't even there, or were just in Bagdad.

 

[layoutshooter]

Probably will take some time, but there is a lot more that went on over there that isn't discussed. Most rely on journalists that weren't even there, or were just in Bagdad.

When I left the "business", and the army, both, I signed 39 year restrictions on a LOT of material. Just in the past few years has the army stuff I worked on been declassified. With each passing year, more and more of the reality, come out.

In 8 days, June 28, it will be 41 years to that day that I was discharged from the Army Security Agency. I was stationed at Homestead, AFB, working on a Navy site, out on the back road to Key Largo when I got out. My last 6 weeks were spent in Everglades Park fighting wildfires. It sure does seem like a LONG time ago, and yet, it sometimes seems like yesterday.

 

[WanderngFool]

Yeah, right! The right wing wackos called the tea party had nothing to do with it.

But Fox News pretty much invented the Tea Party. They're the Dr Frankenstein and the Tea Party is the monster.


Wasting away again in Wackadoodleville
Searching for my 3 pointed hat
Some people claim that Fox News is to blame
All I know - it's all Obama's fault

 

[Turtle]

Have no fear, the googalites in here will research this to the last letter, then argue for a 1000 pages on who is correct....................

It's pretty simple, really. If the headline is a question that can be answered with "no" then that's usually the right answer and you can stop reading (because once the question has been answered there's no reason to continue reading). It's the difference between good journalism and bad journalism. Once you are aware of it and can see it, headlines in the form of a question which can be answered with a no become comical.

 

[layoutshooter]

A question can also be answered yes.

That "article" is, of course, very badly written, as are just about all articles written today. It was one sided, to be sure, but then again, so is EVERY article written on this subject.

The problem today is that we have few, if any, real journalists. Very few out there willing to really dig for the truth, on ANY subject.

There is much different information out there, on this particular subject, than is seen in the "traditional" press/media. It is easily obtained. Is that there is no one looking? Are the "alternate" stories being suppressed?

The "classified" part is a couple of decades out from being released. That, in this case, is not good. ALL sides of a story need to come out. It is not in this subject, and is likely not in many others.

 

[RLENT]

There is much different information out there, on this particular subject, than is seen in the "traditional" press/media.

Yeah ... mostly in Wingnutville ...

It is easily obtained.

I'm sure ...

Is that there is no one looking? Are the "alternate" stories being suppressed?

Clearly not - you found it ...

The "classified" part is a couple of decades out from being released. That, in this case, is not good. ALL sides of a story need to come out. It is not in this subject, and is likely not in many others.

... sides ?

Screw "sides" ... it's all the relevant data that needs to come out (and for the most part it probably has)

Truth has no "side" ...

 

[Turtle]

A question can also be answered yes.

I'm aware of that. Yes, ___A___ question can be answered yes. However, the journalism axiom, and Lesson One in how NOT to write a headline is, if the headline is a question WHICH CAN BE answered with NO, then the headline gives the reader no reason to continue reading beyond the headline, because they've already obtained all they need to know. If you write a headline in journalism class which can be answered with a NO, you'll get an F for your efforts.

That "article" is, of course, very badly written, as are just about all articles written today. It was one sided, to be sure, but then again, so is EVERY article written on this subject.

I'm contemplating putting together a post about that very thing. It might allow some to recognize good and bad journalism, and when the author is making an attempt to manipulate the reader.

The problem today is that we have few, if any, real journalists. Very few out there willing to really dig for the truth, on ANY subject.

There are many reasons for that, and it's part of what I am considering putting into the post.

There is much different information out there, on this particular subject, than is seen in the "traditional" press/media. It is easily obtained. Is that there is no one looking? Are the "alternate" stories being suppressed?

"Suppressed" indicates a conspiracy. That's not likely. It's a combination of different agendas and simple editorial choices.

The "classified" part is a couple of decades out from being released. That, in this case, is not good. ALL sides of a story need to come out. It is not in this subject, and is likely not in many others.

For most complicated stories, particular political stories, ALL sides of the story coming out in a single piece or even from a single news outlet is practically impossible. There isn't enough paper or ink to to it in print, and not nearly enough time in a 24 hour day to do it in broadcast news.