Is this true?

[U2girl]

I read recently that on Fox TV they had a poll on what means were justified regarding the 3rd man of Al Kaeda who was caught lately. They also showed a pic of him (with, perhaps suggestive, bruises).
Anyway, majority of people who called in voted any means were justified. The host even said the "human piece of .... should be tortured".

Isn't it a reporter's job to report objectively, and not take sides or make suggestive comments?

(not to mention the "humane" result of the polls)

 

[Angela Harlem]

Fox have a real reputation for not being fair and overall biased in their reporting.
The host actually swore? I can't believe he/she said that! Not that I doubt you, just can't believe they said that.

 

[The Wanderer]

there's absolutely no substance to this thread at all, unless you provide some kind of support to your claims, it should be closed.

 

[meegannie]

Apparently it was a commentator....

http://inthesetimes.com/comments.php?id=119_0_1_0_C

On March 5, MSNBC?s Buchanan & Press show displayed a photo of the recently captured Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the ?third man of al-Qaeda??a mean visage, in an unspecified nightgown prison-dress, half opened and with something like bruises half-discernible, hints that he was already tortured. Pat Buchanan?s fast voice was asking: ?Should this man who knows all the names, all the detailed plans for the future terrorist attacks on the United States, be tortured, so that we get all this out of him?? The horror was that the photo already suggested the answer. No wonder the response of other commentators and viewers? calls was an overwhelming ?Yes!?

This is a pretty close realization of what Orwell imagined in 1984?s ?hate sessions,? where the citizens are shown photos of the traitors and supposed to boo and yell at them. And the story goes on: A day later, a FOX News commentator claimed that we are allowed to do with this prisoner whatever we want?deprive him of sleep, break his fingers, etc.?because he is ?a piece of human garbage with no rights whatsoever.? That such public statements are possible today is the true catastrophe.

We should therefore be very attentive not to fight ancillary battles: the debates on how bad Saddam is, or on how much the war will cost, even on how well (or poorly) the occupation is proceeding. The focus should be on what effectively goes on in our culture, on what kind of society is emerging here as the result of the ?war on terror.? The ultimate result of this war will be a change in our political order.


Slavoj ?i?ek, a philosopher and psychoanalyst, is a senior researcher at the Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities, in Essen, Germany. Among other books, he is the author of a The Fragile Absolute and Did Somebody Say Totalitarianism?

 

[martha]

Pat Buchanan

This explains a lot.

 

[elfyx]

Orwell was a genius.

I ran into this exact scenario a few weeks ago, too- except not on fox. It was pretty disgusting, and of course the implication was made that you're "unamerican" and "unpatriotic" if you thought torture was a bad idea.

 

[Dreadsox]

Buchanan did not say it though. It was someone from Fox.

 

[U2girl]

Thanks, meegannie!

That's the article that was published in our newspaper today (so, wanderer, I can't put it out here) in which the thing I was posting about was mentioned.

 

[martha]

Pat Buchanan?s fast voice was asking: ?Should this man who knows all the names, all the detailed plans for the future terrorist attacks on the United States, be tortured, so that we get all this out of him?? The horror was that the photo already suggested the answer. No wonder the response of other commentators and viewers? calls was an overwhelming ?Yes!?

No, Pat didn't actually say it. But his viewers supported it.

 

[deep]

I think the Drudge report is a poor source for relable information.

That being said, I thought this thread was about this information:

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH DISCUSSED REMOVING SADDAM HUSSEIN FROM POWER AS FAR BACK AS MARCH 2002, TIME REPORTS
Sun Mar 23 2003 10:51:36 ET

New York ? TIME offers the inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush?s agenda ? and why outcome there may foreshadow a different world order. TIME?s Michael Elliott and James Carney profile key Bush administration members who were involved in the decision to go to war. TIME?s special double issue will be on newsstands Monday, March 24th.

"F?k Saddam. We?re taking him out," said President George W. Bush in March 2002, after poking his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, TIME reports.

TIME?s story focuses on Paul Wolfowitz, a senior advisor to President Bush, a neoconservative ? someone who thinks that the world is a dangerous place where civilization and democracy hang by a thread. Neoconservatives, report Elliott and Carney, also believe that the U.S. is endowed by Providence with the power to make the world better if only it will take the risks of leadership to do so.

In January 1998, Wolfowitz joined other neo-conservatives in signing a letter to President Clinton arguing that "containment" of Saddam had failed and asserting that "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power?needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

Vice President Dick Cheney, another high-ranking neoconservative, agreed. The Vice President told a campaign aide in 2000 "we have swept that problem [Iraq] under the rug for too long. We have a festering problem there." Cheney, who had been instrumental in the ceasefire of the first Gulf War, was outraged by Hussein?s attempted assassination of former President George Bush. He was also, as Wolfowitz put it, "transformed by Sept. 11 ? by the recognition of the danger posed by the connection between terrorists and WMDS [Weapons of Mass Destruction] and by the growing evidence of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda."

As one former senior Administration official puts it: "The eureka moment was that realization by the President that were a WMD to fall into [terrorists?] hands, their willingness to use it would be unquestioned. So we must act pre-emptively to ensure that those that have the capability aren?t allowed to proliferate it." One advisor to the president, report Elliott and Carney, went as far as to say that Bush thinks Saddam is insane. "If there is one thing standing between those who want WMDS and those who have them," says this source, "it is this madman. Depending on the sanity of Saddam is not an option."

Developing...

It is information like this that is separating the US from most of the world. This leads one to believe that this is really a unilateral action.