Oil for food: biggest source of illegal funds approved by US

Iraq Forum

It was still a UN run program, doesn't matter if it was approved by the US or not.

We don't approve programs with the assumption that it will be run illegally.

Yeah but the UN is the sum of all the member states, so if any country did know about this or any other illegal activity then they should have mentioned it at the time and stopped it before it got out of hand.

True but they didn't, now the US is trying to get to the bottom of the corruption. And what did Kofi do to punish Binan Savan? Suspended him and took away his pay. Basically a slap on the wrist because he was already retired and was only drawing $1 dollar a year for his services.

Kofi should take away his diplomatic immunity so he can be prosecuted.

h@ts, you are one twisted puppy to believe that crap. I think you need some serious help my friend.

So the U.S. needs to where a shirt saying "It's all my fault." Nobody else in the world is to blame? All the corrupt nations who belong to the UN and only the US is to blame? The US is then only nation trying to straighten out the UN and we are to blame?

Your logic is impeccable.

Did either of you read the article?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/s...1407964,00.html

Why should we listen to Britians version of Michael Moore.

Yeah, shoot the messenger...etc

The thing is the UN doesn't deserve defending for it's wrongdoings, neither do Britain, France, China or whoever else, but neither does the US, but defend it I'm sure you will.

You guys aren’t making a good defense of your case (Ron & USA1) from what I can see here. It’s plain and simple and in black and white before your eyes. Yes, it isn’t the first time we looked the other way because of self interest then turned around and pointed out that which we’ve ignored for years to support current agendas.

This is why so many have a problem with us. The citizens of this country (US) seem to buy into whatever we’re told. We believe we’re above reproach and all global righteousness having to first come through us.

I think our nation is in for perilous times. Those now in charge in Washington have dangerous ideologies and anyone who dares to have a difference of opinion (regardless of party affiliation) will simply be silenced. This cannot continue without there being some repercussions or disasters waiting. The decision to invade Iraq (regardless of what is now occurring) is a prime example of those not wanting to listen to differing opinion. One day, it may be on a larger scale and God help us all.

As for this info about the UN, I heard about it long before h@ts’ post. Yes even this great nation that has done so much good around the world is not impervious to corruption of its leaders from time to time. Unfortunately this is a clear example of such.

You know I really don't know what you are getting at. Are you for the UN investigations or against?

Ron,
H@ts and peace are for whatever sheds a bad light on the US. Period.
There is nothing you or I or anyone else can do for the spinmasters.

http://www.inreview.com/showthread....=371#post537643

Ron, as USA1 suggested, you're spinning your wheels.

You have a bit of a misconception about Conservatives. Conservatives want justice for all. Let the cards fall where they may. Whomever was involved needs to answer for their actions whether it's the US, UN or other countries. Whether it's President Bush or Kofi Annan or other leaders or diplomats.

As I said, we want the UN to work without corruption.

Of course you have heard that there is an new scandal at the UN with the World Meteorological Organization. And there is investigation into all the other orgs in the UN. It's much deeper than the Oil For Food Program.

Ron every decent citizen of any free country of this world wants corruption to be banned from his country and international institutions. It is factually proven that corruption is detrimental to a country economical development and wealthyness.
The good thing is that if you hear about scandals and judicial procedures, this implies that some people are doing their job by investigating and sueing wrongdoers. And those people of good will are not only Americans.
The concern now is that some of you guys behave like moralists perched on soapboxes atop their ivory tower, pointing fingers, laying blame on all others but the US leaders. Sorry if H@ts' posts shed light on what is going wrong at home guys.

Imagine, only h@ts is able to figure this whole thing out. Genious.

He is so far left that he can't make a right turn.
It's the same old anti-US spin in everything. Either America is evil or Americans are too stupid to think for themselves.

Give us a break!

This is about whether the UN should be investigated and held accountable for their actions.

It's a simple question, YES or NO. Without the political banter.

Answer the question YES or NO!!!!!

Ron I thik that the UN should be investigated fairly. The only issue is how in the hell do you do that? there are enough high power people being linked to this scandel who will do what they can to save thier skin, plus the memeber countries if Russia, China, France and now it appears the US being accused of actin improperly then due to the command these countries have then it will be difficult if not impossible to get a clear and honest account. Plus the fcat that there are not some countries including the US that would rather the UN was destroyed rather than saved add the fact that diplomats and politicians will save thmeselves before they save the UN then it is a major task in trying to get clear answers on murky accusations.

Genious! You're just too smart for us Americans.

Oh I am sorry USA1 just trying to get the discussion back on track, you know the discussion that you and a certain other member have ruined with your pointless and child like slagging of Europe and the US and left VS right arguements.

The U.S. has and is doing more good in the world than all other nations combined. I'm sure you will directly or indirectly challenge this, being the "but" monkeys that so many of you are:

"Yes, BUT…"
"I know, BUT…"
"BUT you don't consider…"
"BUT…"

http://www.inreview.com/showthread....=371#post539223

You know Joe I was not even thinking of you when I wrote the last post because anything you post is irrelevent.

"Yes, BUT…"
"I know, BUT…"
"BUT you don't consider…"
"BUT…"
"BUT…"
"BUT…"
"BUT…"

And there you go Tank you for proving my point.

Most of Europe despises America, for many reasons. Half of it could only be liberated with US aid; the other half got its collective arses kicked in the process. The whole place only was rebuilt because the Marshall Plan. From the British perspective, just remember in WWII, 25% of our ammunition and 50% of our tanks were supplied by the US, as well as almost our replacement merchant shipping & nearly all of our transport aircraft.

I already hear cries of ‘yank-lover’ but I make no bones about this being a pro-US blog. Now I’m no expert on geo-politics, but Sir Winston Churchill was and as he said in his broadcast from Washington in May 1943,

“The experience of a long life and the promptings of my blood have wrought in me the conviction that there is nothing more important for the future of the world than the fraternal association of our two peoples in righteous work both in war and peace.”

The eco-weenies continue to drone on that America is populated by narrow-minded cowboys that have no comprehension of the World stage, pursues a damaging unilateral foreign policy, think that Disneyland is the cultural peak & only want to eat in Taco Bell. It is the view of your correspondent however, that the EU’s non-intervention in policies that cause huge problems; witness Bosnia. The exception to this is of course, Germany – they keep invading everybody in an attempt to force entire populations to listen to 3-day Wagnerian operas.

This dislike of America is deep seated and to a greater extent, has blinded EU leaders to recent World events. Most of Europe is at best spinelessly ambivalent to the War on Terrorism; France and Germany actively collaborating in their opposition (nothing new about the French collaborating with the Germans eh?).

But this loathing goes much deeper and steams from envy – Europeans hate America because it is so much richer & has higher standards of living. All because American working folks produce more of just about everything in any year than their European counterparts.

A report published in the Los Angeles Times concluded that Italians get 42 days of paid vacation every year, the French 37, the Germans 35, and the British 28. Americans, meanwhile, take off only 14 of the 16 days to which they are entitled. Figures from the US Government’s Bureau of Labour Statistics show that Americans also work a 49-hour-week, which adds up to 350 more hours of labour a year than the typical European worker. I hear cries of “quality of life” from Champagne Socialists in Hoxton. (Note to Father Christmas – As I’ve been a good boy this year, please may I have a Tomahawk cruise missle for Christmas……just one will do..)

A good way to sum up Americans’ views of vacations is to study the habits of George W. Bush during his summer break. He retreated to his ranch, where the temperature regularly exceeds 100F, to clear brush. For relief from that vacation activity, he met his foreign policy team, then his economic advisers, then travelled to national parks to push his plan to reduce the incidence of forest fires, then on to California for a fundraising tour.

Even bloated Eurocrats are starting to express real worry. Not only is the American economy more productive than Europe’s, the gap is widening — output per man-hour in the US continues to rise, as the infrastructure left behind by busted dot-coms becomes more and more efficiently deployed. Worse still for those who want to play catch-up, America’s outlays on research and development, a harbinger of future improvements in productivity, continue to outstrip those of the EU. But how can that be, now that Brussels is trying to create a Workers Paradise?

The bad news for Europe is that the mediocrity of our politicians is manifest in their lack of understanding of both macro & micro economics. They espouse the advantages of not working, rather than to implement policies that make work more attractive. Gordon Brown lusts after America’s productivity performance, but continues to raise taxes so as to make work less remunerative.

—Mr. Free Market

It is convenient to sum up opposition to the Bush admin's foreign policy to simplistic considerations like "for or against" the investigation. I see that as an attempt to dodge the facts and arguments displayed. Against the reform of the UN and a thorough investigation ? Give me a break.

Yes, I don't understand why people want to turn a case about corruption into a left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative argument. I think the point of bringing up the article is that there are some in the U.S. that are overly concerned with the corruption in the UN, but then miss the bigger corruption at the hands of the US. Some people are willing to accept the US corruption because they were done in self-interest, but if the UN used the same excuse, they would get flustered and demand everyone's head.

The point is that there is corruption, and ALL of it should be investigated. I'm sure if this corruption occured under only Clinton and not him and Bush, some of you would change your tune. And that's the sad part, forget about partisanship, it's the exact same thing for elections and overhauling the electoral system.

ICB, Why don't you show us the US corruption that you are talking about, and if you come back with Haliburton I will scream....

Ron, I think that was handily pointed out in the original article of this thread. And since so many Bush supports were perched on their soap boxes it makes the crow a little harder to swallow.

Facts are, it's not about who committed the corruption, it's about who gets caught. After so much finger pointing, it's simply embarrassing to the US that we can get caught in a compromising position.

There is an association called something like Transparency Watch, studying and assessing corruption in each country on a factual basis. Each country is then given a mark and ranked in a list.
What appears is that year after year, even though globally law is properly enforced in our western countries, none of them is exempt of blame. The only ones to be found nearly "white" according to this study are countries like Denmark or Sweden if I recall well.
The US is not among the less corrupt countries, neither are the countries listed by ICB.
What is truly irritating are people who keep pointing finger at others in such a context, in constant attempts to shift the blame on them.
I say - let's work together to clean up the bad practices and everyone will take advantage of that. Economical development is always undermined by corruption.

You call that proof of corruption? The article says nothing about corruption by the US. It mearly points out the the US allowed Iraq to make some illecit deals with some of it's neighbors more for Stability and Security than anything else. And what the article doesn't say is that the Oil For Food Program was designed for Iraq to sell OIL to it's neighbors so they could BUY FOOD!! Hence the OIL FOR FOOD PROGRAM.

Look I am not going to let you get away with making blanket empty accusations. As a Moderator here it is part of my job to make sure that you don't. This is not a Forum for propaganda. It is a Forum for open discussion. We have both Liberals and Conservitives here and much more. When you make such statement be prepared to back up your words, as am I.

Ron, your concern about propaganda being spewed on this board is legitimate, what's more if you are a moderator. I suppose then that you have already warned Curley long ago ?

• Transcript: Spertzel on Annan

NEW YORK—Dr. Richard Spertzel, a member of the team inspecting Iraq's clandestine weapons efforts, told FOX News that Saddam Hussein was actively developing disguised aerosol weapons containing the nerve gas sarin that could be used for assassination or mass murder.

Spertzel, who offers his comments in a special FOX News investigation airing Sunday at 9 p.m. EST — "United Nations Blood Money: Kofi Annan Under Fire" — said Saddam intended to put them in perfume bottles to be placed on department store shelves in the U.S. and Europe.

Following is a partial transcript of his interview with FOX News' Jonathan Hunt:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147047,00.html

P.S.
Ron, you just gotta love the way U.S.-haters twist words around to vilify the U.S. any which way possible…

Cheers, Benny Hill on the Thames…

JY French - I just sent you a PM.

H@TS - The OFF scandal is concerning highly placed politicians or diplomats (mostly in the UN) lining their pockets in exchange for doing favors for Saddam. The deals that were allowed to exist were under the OFF program a UN program. Saddam was allowed to sell oil to his neighbors under the program. That is what the program was all about. I expect that the US overlooked certain bad deals expecting that the good deals would go toward feeding the Iraqi people. Not taking action is not considered corruption or illegal, unless you can show that someones pockets were lined for our inaction. Also this did not happen under the current US President.

That interview is with Jonathen Hunt is on FOX News tonight at 9PM. We should all watch it and discuss it later. I think this will be very interesting.

It is always the same tricky game - shifting blame on others to divert attention from oneself. Some republicans are very good disciples of Machiavel.

As Judge Robert Bork can tell you, having your last name turned into a verb is never a good thing. Still worse is when your name is taken, robbed of its capitalization, and used to describe others such as you. Vidkun Quisling was Norway's most infamous Nazi collaborator. When Churchill spoke of "These vile Quislings in our midst," he made the name synonymous with "traitor." Now that the interim report of the U.N.'s so-called "Independent Inquiry Committee" on the Oil for Food program is out, it's quite apparent that all the little volckers of the U.N. are doing their best to divert any serious investigation of the largest rip-off in history.

The report, released last Thursday, admits what is no longer deniable and ignores everything else. In January 2004, the Al Mada newspaper in Baghdad released a list of people, companies and nations that had been bribed by Saddam's regime through the Oil for Food scam. Among them was the name of Benon Sevan, the U.N. bureaucrat who headed up the program. The February 3 report says that Sevan asked Iraq for oil allocations for AMEP, a company run by his pal Fakhry Abdelnour. AMEP got its allocations (totaling about $1.5 million) and some part of the money resulting from the sale of the oil (thought to be at least $160,000) found its way into Sevan's pockets. But why?

The Iraqis weren't passing out oil allocations worth millions just to see if they could. Every bribe Saddam's regime paid was for a purpose. The regime obviously wanted Sevan to do (or not do) something in return for the bribe. But what? In the thoroughly volckered report, there's no mention of the motive for the bribe, or the service Sevan did in return for it. Or even that the "Independent Inquiry" is looking into it. The report says that Sevan's actions "were ethically improper and seriously undermined the integrity of the United Nations." Saying Sevan has ethical problems is like saying the Gambino family has legal issues. Sevan -- who is apparently as crooked as a dog's hind leg -- may be a sacrificial lamb. The U.N. investigators have no interest in digging into the reason for the bribe or what Sevan did because it might just lead them to the heart of the corruption.

The report also criticizes the fact that Sevan was able to ignore the requests of the U.N.'s internal audit department -- the Office of Internal Oversight Services -- and run the program without encumbering it with those terribly inconvenient things called checks and balances. But that, too, is old news. Weeks ago, congressional investigators released some of the U.N.'s internal audit reports that they had spent a year fighting to get. In one, dated July 28, 2003, OIOS reported to Sevan, and to the entire U.N. hierarchy, that Sevan had ignored their requests and had not put in place the audit and oversight mechanisms that were essential to running a multi-billion dollar program such as Oil for Food: "Appropriate procedures and internal controls had not been established to reduce or eliminate" the high-risk parts of the program. Once again, the volckered report admits only what is old news, and does nothing further.

Stack that July 2003 report up against the U.N.'s statements when the Oil for Food scam began to attract media attention. On February 18, 2004 — seven months after the internal audit report showed that Sevan had prevented proper oversight of the program — Shashi Tharoor, the U.N.'s Undersecretary General for Communications and Public Information, wrote the following in a letter to the Wall Street Journal:

The [Oil for Food] program itself was managed strictly within the mandate given to [the U.N.] by the Security Council and was subject to nearly 100 different audits, external and internal, between 1998 and 2003 and, as the secretary general has said, this produced no evidence of any wrongdoing by any U.N. official.

That was nonsense when it was written, and it's nonsense now. Last week's report recounts the findings of the July 2003 report, and does nothing more than repeat its recommendations. But -- again -- it fails to pursue the motives and consequences: why did the U.N. hierarchy let the mess in Oil for Food continue? That report was addressed to Sevan and to Deputy Secretary General Frechette, C. Elfverson, director of the U.N.'s program oversight office, the U.N. Board of Auditors and others. Why did they all ignore it and leave Sevan to go his merrily corrupt way? Don't ask Mr. Volcker.

IT'S NOT EASY TO THINK ILL of an eminence such as Paul Volcker. But why would a man such as he put himself in the position of a shill for Kofi Annan and his corrupt crew? The unfortunate answer came to light a couple of weeks ago in a memo by Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation.

As Gardiner reports Paul Volcker was, at the time he was appointed to head the "Independent Inquiry," a director of the United Nations Association of the United States of America, "UNA-USA," as well as the Business Council for the United Nations. UNA-USA is a lobbying group that promotes the U.N. to Congress and the media. The Business Council does the same among the business community. This is an obvious conflict of interest that completely disqualifies Volcker from running an independent investigation. It also renders any report of his investigation at best unreliable, and at worst worthless.

If there's any doubt about the latter, consider this. According to Gardiner's report, one of the chief donors to UNA-USA and the Business Council for the United Nations was BNP Paribas, the French bank through which most of the Oil-for-Food-for-Bribes-for-Weapons program funding flowed. BNP donated more than $100,000 to UNA-USA and the Business Council in 2002 and 2003, Gardiner reported.

There are plenty of vile quislings running around in the U.N., appeasing terrorists and bashing democracies. And all the little volckers running around behind them make their goals so much easier to achieve.

—Jed Babbin
2/7/2005

What’s really kind of funny and sad is that we have some very delusional people here whom believe that we (USA) are the only moral body in the entire UN and world for that matter.

Bush isn’t responsible for the culpable actions of the US in this same oil for food program, however since he currently represents our great country, he will take the hit for it.

Let’s not act naïve people. The UN has sought to be manipulated by many countries to suit their agendas including the US. When the smoke clears, I’m interested in seeing the results.

Oneof.. no not true, I believe anyone can do wrong, $$$ can corrupt anyone given the right circumstance. The UN OFF scandal is not about conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. It's about corruption. Let the cards fall where they may.

Why is it that only the US is investigating the UN? Why aren't other countries concerned about what happen? It's because the US was burned by it? If you watched that report by Fox News, it was very telling. Unlike CNN they are not pulling an punches. Americans were involved and may be implicated including of all people Scott Ritter, who now works for Al Jazeera.

Tell me what the other news agencies are reporting on this? Are they even mentioning it?

Oh you do know that CNN held back news reports during the run up to the Iraq war dont' you? Reports that would have supported the Bush Administration. Or maybe nobody else is reporting that.

My impression though is that the smoke will never clear. Someone will fall for the current news but, the rest just may get stymied when they get too deep.
I also think that the Oil for Food debackle is just the tip of the iceburg and if they keep digging, they may as well shut the whole thing down or start over.

Fox News

Sunday, February 13, 2005


NEW YORK — The United Nations Oil-for-Food (search) scandal went from being a bureaucratic mess to a bona-fide criminal matter on Jan. 18 when an Iraqi-American who was under investigation pleaded guilty to taking part in what may be the world's largest financial scam.

With Samir Vincent's (search) guilty plea, U.S. prosecutors are now investigating the matter to determine the extent of the criminal activities and whether more Americans should be charged.

"The [Saddam] Hussein regime had accomplices in corrupting and weakening the international sanctions," Attorney General John Ashcroft said Jan. 18. "Today, one of those accomplices becomes the first to be convicted under the Justice Department's active and ongoing probe of fraud and abuse in the U.N. Oil-for-Food program."

Ashcroft announced the plea agreement reached with Vincent, an Annandale, Va., man who was born in Iraq but came to the United States as a young man in 1958 to attend Boston College. He later became a U.S. citizen and businessman who advocated for Iraqi causes.

Vincent pleaded guilty to making false statements on tax returns, acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign government and violating the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (search).

For the past decade, Vincent was working under the direct orders of Saddam — using bribe money from the former Iraqi dictator — to get the United States to lift the U.N. sanctions against that country.


Among the people Vincent lobbied were former President Jimmy Carter (search), who, in 1999, met with a number of Iraqi religious leaders at Vincent's request. Vincent also lobbied former Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp (search), who later wrote a letter to then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott that pressed the case against sanctions.

Kemp said that letter had nothing to do with Vincent and neither he, nor Carter, are accused of doing anything illegal.

"He misled a lot of people, including Jimmy Carter and others, and misled me. But I'm not part of the investigation," Kemp told FOX News.

Saddam paid Vincent as much as $5 million in cash and oil vouchers, which entitled the Iraqi-American to buy discounted Iraqi oil. Now facing 28 years in prison for lying on his taxes, violating Iraqi sanctions and acting as an unregistered agent for Iraq, Vincent is turning states evidence.

"I think he was a perfect first guy for them to start the investigation with. Just big enough, not the big fish but big enough to know everybody in the process, so he could create fear in people," said Joe DiGenova (search), a former U.S. attorney and independent counsel.

DiGenova said another way to create fear is to roll out the Justice Department's heaviest hitter. In this case, it was Ashcroft, who was attorney general at the time of the announcement.

Ashcroft making the announcement himself helped "to demonstrate to the world that the Oil-for-Food problem at the U.N. was not just a minor matter," DiGenova said. "That, in all likelihood, it would metastasize and become pretty ugly."

Since then, former Bush counsel Alberto Gonzales (search) has replaced Ashcroft as the nation's top law enforcer.

Vincent apparently wasn't the only American who received Oil-for-Food largesse from Saddam.

Another name on the special oil voucher's list is that of a prominent Detroit area businessman, Ahakir Al-Khafaji (search), who develops shopping malls but who also decided to fight Iraqi sanctions.

There are reports that Al-Khafaji gave $400,000 for a film called "Shifting Sands," which was critical of U.S. policy on Iraq. The producer of the film, Scott Ritter (search), was an arms inspector for the U.N. in the 1990s who, in 2003, opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom and claimed that Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction.

Al-Khafaji also gave freely to American politicians.

He helped arrange for three Democratic congressmen to travel to Iraqi before Operation Iraqi Freedom — David Bonior (search) of Michigan, Mike Thompson (search) of California and Jim McDermott (search) of Washington — all of whom used the visit to speak out against the impending war.

"We recognized that in the past Saddam Hussein has done things with weapons of mass destruction. What we want today is to disarm him ... not to have regime change," McDermott said while on the trip.

None of those lawmakers are accused of doing anything wrong by simply accepting donations from Al-Khafaji. McDermott even returned a $5,000 donation made to his legal defense fund.

FOX News' Eric Shawn tried to talk with Al-Khafaji by going to his house and his office, but the FOX crew was turned away. Al-Khafaji has denied wrongdoing elsewhere and he has not been charged with any crime.

Nor has a third American on Saddam's voucher list, Houston oil mogul Oscar Wyatt (search), who also said he's done nothing wrong.

What should concern Americans is whether Saddam still succeeded in influencing U.S. policy. So far, U.S. investigators in Congress, the Justice Department, and in the Iraqi Survey Group, have not reported any evidence of that. If anything, ambassador Richard Williamson (search) insists, the United States consistently fought any concessions to Saddam under Oil-for-Food.

"The U.S. was trying to keep it as strong as it was with other countries trying to weaken it," Williamson said.

Those other countries were trying to weaken the program and were getting help from people on Saddam's payroll to get around the United Nations. That's where Vincent came in.

According to court records, he not only lobbied U.N. officials for Saddam, he even paid one off. It's not publicly known who that U.N. official is, but the Justice Department likely does if Vincent is talking.

"I think the most important thing is he is someone who's in the meetings, talked directly to the people who were scamming the Oil-for-Food program — he's basically the keys to the kingdom," DiGenova said. "I think anybody who touched the Oil-for-Food program, got money, and did so without following the laws of the United States — they've got a lot to worry about."

FOX News' Eric Shawn, Jonathan Wachtel, Brian Gaffney, George Russell, Grace Cutler and Betsy Petrick contributed to this report.

It started when we found how corrupt it was during document confiscation in Iraq. After interviewing hundreds of former Saddam cabinet members and program employees (Henchman). Most of what was traded for oil was unusable junk or poor quality (cheap) goods, some of it even rotten. Those who bartered or traded, helped Saddam murder his own people.
Exposing this corruption will force drastic changes in the UN. How does this benefit the U.S.? It doesn't, it benefits the world. So why would we go through all the trouble? If you can answer this yourself without a conspiracy, you're on the right track.

I don’t want to even get into the “protecting the News Agencies” bidding because that in my opinion is a lose/lose proposition. There are times when Fox as well as CNN have good reporting. However, Fox has made it their mission to bring you “no spin” which I think is an oxymoron when talking about news agencies.

Anyway let me point out something.

Just a note about Spin, There is only one program on Fox that Boast No Spin and that is the O'Reiley Factor.

Sure you will get a certain amout of spin on other programs. But I do hear a lot of the journalist take the opposite view of whomever they are interviewing.

Their motto is not "No Spin" it's "Fair and Balanced". Which means when they bring on a Republican they also have a Democrat. When they bring on someone that says Michael Jackson is Guilty they also bring on someone who says he is innocent. Hell they have Gerald Reveria who is not noted for being a conservitive. Alan Colmes is a staunch Liberal Democrat Sean Hannity is a far Right Republican. O'Reiley is an Independant.

They show the bad news about Iraq and bring on Dems that say it's going to hell in a handbasket and that we are loosing the war on terror. But then they will bring on a Rep that says things are going well and show the feel good side of things.

If you contiunally watch CNN, MSNBC and BBC you'll get the idea that it's all Doom and Gloom in Iraq. All I'm saying is to balance it out and turn Fox on now and then. Especially a 6pm EST for Special Report or Fox News Sunday. When they have their panel which isn't just Conservitives, they balance it with Liberals too like Juan Williams from NPR.

I don't have american channels here so I have to wait for travel opportunities to watch them and make an opinion of my own.
What I have seen on Fox News is ... how to say .... "different" to say the least. Even keeping an objective appreciation there are comments and shows that I just can't consider as "fair and balanced".

Regarding the news media...
I just want a this this and that happened.

I don't want any spin....in fact fox news IS the worst....they just sit around and attempt to do the thinking for me...

I would rather both sides (and rarely) the middle just shut their traps and their opining on the subject and tell me what happened....

I could care less what O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmes, or Riviera and the others think about the subject...I can think for myself, thank you very much.

I turn on Fox News for five minutes and I am extremely pissed off by the time I say "Yuck get out of my face" and change the channel.

I mostly go to Israeli news sources for what's going on everywhere....just the facts m'aam. There are more journalists in Jerusalem than their are anywhere else in the world....and I can take my pick of the best of them.

I am like SWTT I get fox news over here and I have to switch off after a few minutes. I tend to watch Sky News in the UK as I tend to find that it just gives you the facts and not the reporters opinins on what is happening.

It's really tough when the truth hurts. Sometimes you just have to stop watching it.

Or sometimes you’ve been exposed to its skewed reporting so long that the line between truth and fiction becomes blurred. One way of telling its resounding effects is if after watching it (Fox), you swear to its legitimacy.

So what are the legitimate news outlets?

That's kind of an oxymoron isn't it?

I think they all are opinion driven rather than fact reporting at times. Some are more heavily opinionated than others. There are times Fox report factual reports but then someone always make a comment to remind you you’re watching a rather extreme right news agency.

I personally wouldn’t defend any of them.

That's why I read Reuters, Washington Post, CNN, Fox, MNF-OIF, Scimitar, CBS, ABC, Al Jazzera on a daily basis. If you don't you get a pretty one sided perspective of the world. It also helps if you open your ears.