Wow. My respect for Megyn Kelly just went way up

MEGYN KELLY: In your op-ed, you write as follows: ‘Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.’ But time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well, sir. You said there were no doubts that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. You said we would be greeted as liberators. You said the Iraq insurgency was in its last throes back in 2005. And you said after our intervention, extremists would have to “rethink their strategy of jihad.” Now with almost a trillion dollars spent there with 4,500 American lives lost there, what do you say to those who say you were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many?

Cheney argle bargle follows, but it’s nice to see somebody on FOX actually behave like a journalist.

I wonder how long she’ll keep her job. I s’pose as long as she doesn’t question FOX’s role in all that she’ll be okay.

Like Patheos Catholic on Facebook!

Patheos Catholic LogoCLICK HERE TO "LIKE" PATHEOS CATHOLIC ON FACEBOOK

Americans on War
Having to Kill vs. Getting to Kill
The Difference between Colbert and O'Reilly
A Parable of Two Sons
  • Dave G

    I don’t think fox is all you think it is. Since CNN has gone to 3 stories a day I’ve turned to other stations more. I still prefer papers. Still i keep up with tv news when I have the chance. But I’ve been shocked at how many perspectives there are at Fox. . I never cared for Fox because of the night time shows. . But I must admit it’s no different than the others. Just a different POV.

  • Mariana Baca

    Megyn Kelly tends to be a good reporter, at least for the non-partisan stuff I’ve seen her do. This is not the first time. She has been there a while. DISCLAIMER — I do not watch the news regularly, dunno if she has done egregious things I’ve not been linked to.

    • Dave G.

      In honesty I never cared for her after I saw a clip from her show a few years ago. Granted it was a non friendly source. But it showed a segment where she talked about a couple who sold a letter from Obama and used it for a down payment on a house. They got 7000 for it. When it went back to her she sort of snickered and said it must not be much of a house! That left a sour taste in my mouth and reflects one of the attitudes that is common at Fox that I don’t care for.

  • Dan C

    I recall she was the one who listened to Karl Rove’s special election night prognostication and calculation, then interviewed the numbers dudes in the offices, not only saying to Karl Rove that his crystal ball didn’t match reality, but giving the numbers dudes being scorned by Rove a chance to make their case directly, with evidence and reason.

    • chezami

      If memory serves her question was “Are these numbers real or is this just math you tell yourself to feel better about being a Republican?” That’s when I started to pay attention to her. It was exquisite. Google “Landslide on Bullshit Mountain” to see Jon Stewart epic coverage of this surreal moment when reality broke into the FOX bubble.

      • Dan C

        I re-watched that clip earlier. Fantastic.

      • Dave G.

        Real quick. Do you actually watch FOX, or do you get your information about it from Stewart?

  • captcrisis

    Cheney, notoriously, is personally a coward. He will not appear anyplace where he thinks someone might give him a hard time. So it must have been quite a shock to get this treatment on Fox.

  • Charles E Flynn

    Megyn Kelly has strong ratings, and is never boring or predictable:

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/monday-cable-ratings-foxs-megyn-kelly-1-in-demo-for-all-cable-news/

    • meg

      Did I hear right? Did he call her Reagan?

  • Mike Blackadder

    Absolutely a good question and good journalism. That’s what it should be about (someone tell Candy Crowler). The best thing about it is it gives opportunity to give a good answer. Any reason Mark why you don’t post his answer? That, unfortunately, is more typical of the journalism we have all become accustomed to.

    • chezami

      I don’t post his answer because it’s my blog and I regard his answer as a pack of lies. However, I link the interview so that people who need to consume packs of lies can go there if they like.

      • Mike Blackadder

        You know it’s okay to let people judge for themselves whether they think what someone says is a pack of lies. Especially when you’re wrong.

        • Dan C

          You are selling something smelly.

        • chezami

          Which is why I so thoughtfully provided the link. Aren’t I wonderful?

          • Mike Blackadder

            Yes you are wonderful. And it’s a good link too.

  • Mike Blackadder

    Actually the entire interview is quite good. Not just the cherry-picked part.

    • Dan C

      The interviewer is fair. Mr. Cheney dissembles as is his custom. He gets permission and applause for dissembling from a huge segment of the country.

      On second observation, Kelly is not aggressively following up the misinformation (polite way of saying lies) that Cheney engages. But, again, this misinformation has a huge following who not only believe it, but would have shaped further American misadventures on this.

      • Mike Blackadder

        But Dan which parts are you saying is misinformation? Are you saying that Saddam’s nuclear program didn’t exist or that he didn’t have a stockpile of chemical weapons that were unaccounted for leading up to the war? Or are you saying that Bush’s troop surge strategy was NOT enormously successful? Are you saying that the Bush administration had NOT made enormous progress in Iraq by the end of his presidency? Are you saying that the reputation of Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and radical jihadism in general did NOT plummet over the course of the he Bush presidency (in Muslim majority countries)?

        There is ample evidence to support every one of these claims. So I’m left wondering if what you are calling ‘misinformation’ is really just facts that you automatically dismiss out of some anti-allegiance to Bush and the war in Iraq.

        • Dan C

          So… I claim it is a bit stupid to claim success in “progress” in Iraq when the baseline for such a measurement in Spring 2004 and not, say Fall 2002.

          You promote misinformation again about the Iraq nuclear program, which was present, before the first Gulf War, and not present there after. Nothing new was found by the US-led coalition and the ISG had indicated that the UN audit and inventories represented complete accountings of the Nuke program.

          When you make claims to the Iraq WMD programs that Iraq had, you avoid to categorize exactly when these occurred and when they were available. Hussein had WMD in the form of chemical weapons. But not in the decade prior to the Iraq War. By the first Gulf War, they were gone and that too was categorized by the UN and the ISG confirmed this.

          Blix behaved properly and was defamed constantly. He managed the situation well and his reports stood the test of time.

          It is you and your support for this war that has failed. It was obviously wrong at the time, and the events that have passed supported that.

          Motivated by partisanship (which I frame as a form of enmity and anger) as well as fear, the drums beat for war succeeded.

          Repent of this.

          • Mike Blackadder

            Baseline of progress Spring 2004 vs. Fall 2002: Fair point. If we want to compare the situation that Bush left in Iraq vs what was happening in Fall 2002 then determining ‘progress’ is highly subjective. There’s progress from the point of view of the wellbeing of Iraqis (which some might say is a secondary objective from the point of view of the campaign) and progress from the point of view of the mission as part of the War Against Terror.

            Considering the wellbeing of Iraqis is also subjective; how do you gauge the benefit of removing Saddam from power in terms of removal of international sanctions, in terms of opportunity for political freedom? Even from the point of view of comparing violent death rates you can make a case that Bush left Iraqis in a good situation even compared with Fall 2002. Iraq Body Count shows that in the last year of his presidency violent deaths were about 600-700 per month and in the following year typically less than 500 per month. Obviously that is much better than when death rates were 5 times higher two years previously, but even compared with Fall 2002 realize that the estimated number who died under Saddam Hussein’s secret police is on the order of 200,000 over 23 years. That’s a death rate of more than 700 per month, and that doesn’t take into account the much greater number of soldiers and civilians who died due to the Iran-Iraq war, and the occupation of Kuwait which occurred under Saddam.

            In terms of the success of the campaign itself and how Iraq impacted the war on terror: obviously the campaign took a toll on Americans, allies and Iraqis, but took a greater toll on terrorist organizations both through raw violence but also through the loss of their credibility/favorability throughout the Muslim world. The great success even of the troop surge campaign was coincident with Iraqi rebellion against insurgent/radical forces and greater cooperation with the American military (the Anbar Awakening). If you are a terrorist group trying to attract people to your ranks it’s tougher when your leadership is being destroyed, captured, disrupted and when larger majorities of Muslims now disapprove of what you are doing fighting in these wars. It’s kind of demoralizing to join a cause to fight Americans who are running you out of Iraq, where you are more likely to be killed or captured and most people around you hate you for it. And honestly I know this sounds like an unconventional metric of military ‘progress’, but this is exactly the objective behind fighting a war on terror – a general conversion away from radical violence on an individual level and heightened hostility of nations toward terrorist organizations.

            Saddam’s ambitions to continue building WMDs including nuclear weapons may have changed under UN surveillance, they may not have. Certainly it was tougher for him to accomplish what he was trying to do prior to desert storm. As Cheney pointed out the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq was in the context of 911 and the war on terror. It’s because Saddam had a history of developing WMDs, that not all weapons were accounted for, the process of removing all threats slow, that the UN were frustrated in their attempts to audit the situation due to non cooperation and since it was Saddam’s security who had authority and that there was intelligence pointing to him continuing in development of both WMDs and nuclear weapons (even if that was bad intelligence); and the threat was not that Saddam was going to start to wage war under these conditions, but that his regime and the situation of WMDs development was a loose end and a liability to America’s safety in the context of terrorist organizations trying to attack Americans. It isn’t misinformation or a lie to argue that the American government saw the Iraq regime as a threat in the aftermath of 911.

            • Dan C

              1. Start with the pretense for war. The WMD concern. It was false and the UN group under Blix vindicated on every point. There was evidence, extensive evidence, that Hussein had no WMD’s. Pretending this is an “up in the air” question is like a dedicated anti-vaxxer claiming they have an “open mind” and are just awaiting better safety data. The evidence is aplenty, and the ISG duplicated the UN data. After the US trashed the country.

              2. The War on Terror needed to transfer its attention into Iraq, because the US invasion created the opportunity, fomented radicalization, and allowed the import of terrorism, something not present prior to 2003. Hussein had no terror programs, and no terrorists found homes or purchase in Iraq.

              3. Political freedom is not present according to many in Iraq, due to threats on the lives of citizens or varied plutocracies created by the US coalition.

              You rehash outdated propaganda that has been used time and again to distort and confuse.

              • Mike Blackadder

                Once again Dan, take a look at the CIA report that is a post-mortem of what they knew of Saddam’s continued WMD program. No WMDs? You’re the one peddling the outdated propaganda. In any case, even if what was found was less of a threat than what was expected that doesn’t mean it was a false pretense for going to war. It was exactly the uncertainty of the situation and Saddam’s acts of defiance that identified him as a threat. Wrong intelligence maybe – atleast in degree- but not false.

                https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html#sect4

                • Dan C

                  They attacked chemical factories that made chlorine for water purification. That was intentional and had to do with destroying civilian infrastructure to hurt the population.

                  This document confirms over and over ISG.

                  • Mike Blackadder

                    What? You’re saying Al Muthanna was only producing Chlorine for water purification? Sorry, but no.

                  • Mike Blackadder

                    Dan, do you actually only read certain parts of the report and then your brain automatically rejects the stuff that doesn’t validate Iraq according to the MSM and pres Obama? It’s just a little scary that you read that and continue to claim there were no WMDs.

              • Mike Blackadder

                Regarding the situation in Iraq now; the point I made about how Bush left Iraq was that his campaign created the OPPORTUNITY of a better future for Iraqis. Iraqis democracy and Obama’s own decisions and failure to maintain a presence there has led to the outcome that exists today. Iraqis deserved better than Saddam Hussein (though as I said, that was not the primary objective of the mission).

                • Dan C

                  Bush created Iraq in 2003 as a mess. His father had a team of people who said the country without Hussein would be a Kurdistan, a Sunni middle and an Iran-affiliated Shiite majority south. And under Bush, the south dominated the Sunnis and a near- independent Kurdistan blossomed. We are watching what more civil and moderate Republicans predicted.

                  • Mike Blackadder

                    I’m sure that ISIS has nothing to do with it. Or do you not believe in ISIS, just like how Al Qaeda in Iraq was a fabrication.

                    • Dan C

                      The ISG also notes there were no Al Quaeda folks pre-2003. These Sunnis were Hussein loyalists before 2003. This was not present before. Much evidence before Congress and the ISG demonstrate this fact.

                      Is it a separate reality that you inhabit? Is it just a desire to be correct that has you twist facts?

                    • Mike Blackadder

                      I don’t know of anyone who said that Al Qaeda was in Iraq pre 2003. It’s hard to follow your logic here, but it seems that your argument is that Bush is responsible for this ‘mess’ (ie. the actual state of things in Iraq) because he invaded in 2003, and that everything else that unfolded afterwards, including insurgent forces, including the policies of the Iraqi government, including Obama’s policies are somehow irrelevant or inevitable.

                      I remember very clearly the prolific argument among Democrats and lap-dog media that the violence in Iraq was a civil war, that there was no Al Qaeda insurgency and that suggestions the American military were engaging insurgent terrorist forces in Iraq was a fabrication of Bush and general Petraeus. The point of this false rhetoric was to argue that Bush was not actually conducting a war, because if one accepts he is conducting a war then you might have to admit that bad things happening in a war is the fault of the fact that you’re at war, and you might have to concern yourself with how to defeat the enemy, rather than how to defeat your president politically.

                      It seems now incredibly, that you continue to try to hold Bush responsible for what is happening in Iraq today regardless of the situation that Bush actually left, regardless of the actions of the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people, the Obsma administration which has been conducting ‘overseas operations’ (lol) for 6 years and the conspicuous resurgence of terrorism and their influence over the course of Obama’s presidency. But that’s about all you’ve got to try to defend irrational and irresponsible policies that your side has been advocating from the beginning.

                    • Dan C

                      Ross Douthat, no liberal, holds Bush at fault for the state of Iraq and the current state of American international authority.

                      The party of personal responsibility is like some bizarre Freudian opposite. It is eveything but personal responsibility.

                    • Mike Blackadder

                      That’s a non-response.

                    • Dan C

                      It is a response that indicates that among those not pre-disposed to willful ignorance, there are even committed conservatives admitting that Bush is the reason IRaq is a mess today.

                      You supported an evil war.

                    • Mike Blackadder

                      It’s not a response. It isn’t reasonable to look at the situation today six years after Bush left office and continue to blame him for a resurgence of radical terrorist influence throughout the Mideast and war in Iraq, Syria that have occurred under Obama and due to terrorism being a real threat; something that Obama and Democrats have consistently denied for the past 10 years.

                    • Dan C

                      The Bush administration made claims to Al Quaeda in Iraq and connections for War on Terror to be taken to Baghdad. That was never born out by the ISG.

          • Mike Blackadder

            And it’s not true that Iraq’s WMDs were ‘gone’ at the time of the first Gulf war. Chemical facilities were specifically targeted through air strikes during the Gulf war, which was documented as possibly posing a hazard and illness in Iraq. There was a whole program of dealing with Sadam’s WMDs following the gulf war. https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html#sect4

            • Dan C

              What evidence do you think that document creates other than its continued concurrence that the CW program “ended with Deswet Storm?”

              • Mike Blackadder

                Did you read the sections on Production Capability?

                Read it. You are trying to say that this indicates his WMD program ended with desert storm?

                • Dan C

                  Yes. In fact the conculsions and key findings say he was not making chemical weapons. I sorted and what you arevsaying is different than your original assertion. Here you dissmeble.

                  Iraq had no operational CW ability. They could barely make chlorine for water purification and tylenol.

                  Where does it say, as your side asserted so assuredly in 2003, that he had an operational CW program.

                  You are shifting your assertions. Now, he had future potential maybe after sanctions were lifted to possibly rebuild this program. But nothing in place at all.

                  This was the assertion: WMD’s were in place and the UN didn’t find them. Truth is, they weren’t there for a decade.

                  More clever propagandists for your team assert on the basis of three folks with obvious self-aggrandizing motives that there were lots of WMD’s and they were all taken to Syria. Again, not true.

                  • Mike Blackadder

                    Dan, your narrative is based on half truths. You said that WMDs were ‘gone’ from Iraq, even at the time of the gulf war. That’s not close to the truth. Saddam’s production of WMDs, and his means of production were dismantled at the time of the gulf war. It’s ludicrous to suggest that he had none at that time, or that this was some irrelevant program from years earlier. As you seem to acknowledge later, the reason why Saddam was under UN surveillance, why UN officials were active in Iraq up until the time of OIF is due to this WMD program that was active up until the time of the Gulf war.

                    Saying that Saddam’s WMDs were inventoried and accounted for is not the same thing as saying they were ‘gone’. When they bombed chemical facilities during the Gulf War, it is not true that they were disabling Chlorine production for water purification, they took out among other targets Al Muthanna which was an active R&D and chemical weapons production facility. In fact materials, etc weren’t actually all accounted for at the time of the W Bush invasion, so even that’s not true. It is exactly because existing inventory of WMDs of materials, including partially enriched uranium was still present in Iraq, it was exactly because he was uncooperative and by the time of OIF arms inspectors had been kicked out of Iraq, and the reality of he global terrorism that there was a threat. If WMDs were gone and everyone knew that, then that would be an entirely different situation.

                    At the time intelligence suggested that he had resumed chemical weapons production and that he was continuing to work towards building up a nuclear capability. Honestly we don’t know that he didn’t move weapons to Syria in the time before letting arms inspectors back into Iraq, we don’t know what may have transpired between then and now which would conceal his activities at that time, but it remains the opinion of the intelligence community that Saddam was planning to renew weapons production at least once sanctions had been lifted and that he had built up the capability leading up to OIF and retained resources to begin weapons productive in a short amount of time.

                    So in hindsight some say Bush acted wrongly because there wasn’t a smoking gun of new WMD production. Meanwhile the whole point of the campaign was to prevent the production of WMDs, was based on the threat of the potential to supply weapons to terrorists or that Iraq would become a nuclear power. Needless to say that I prefer Bush’s decided approach to Iraq compared with what transpired in Europe in the 1930s of sanctions and diplomacy as a solution to quell rearmament of Germany, a reactionary policy that allowed WWII to happen.

                    • Dan C

                      The UN and its assessment was right and any selected and cherry-picked unsubstantiated intelligence was wrong. Pretending otherwise is foolish. You need to ask yourself why you chose to defame and disbelieve data that was solid.

                      Now, the evidence you presented discusses this al-Muthana. And supports what I have asserted. You did not even read you own cited evidence.

                      1. “Al Muthanna had dispersed approximately 1024 CW R-400 bombs along various Iraqi airbases. Iraq did not declare some of these to the UN and unilaterally destroyed them in situ. The UN holds these as accounted for, although they were unaware that a small percentage of them were used on the Shia in March 1991 according to multiple sources. ”

                      2.From the CIA website: The entire Al Muthanna mega-facility was the bastion of Iraqi’s chemical weapons development program. During its peak in the late 1980s to early 1990s, it amassed mega-bunkers full of chemical munitions, and provided Iraq with a force multipliersufficient to counteract Iran’s superior military numbers. Two wars, sanctions and UNSCOM oversight reduced Iraqi’s premier production facility to a stockpile of old damaged and contaminated chemical munitions(sealed in bunkers), a wasteland full of destroyed chemical munitions, razed structures, and unusable war-ravaged facilities. In 1998 Al Tariq State Establishment took over all remaining remnants at Al Muthanna. (https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxB.html)
                      This report goes into details how the Al-Muthana site was not an active R and D site.
                      3. The Al Tariq company takes over and during the UN oversight time frame does work outside CW activities and is reported by the CIA as careful to assure everything is UN-complaint to avoid “dual use” concerns by inspectors. In short, they want to stay in business with pesticides, etc.
                      (https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxD.html)

                      These documents do not support the deep lies in the conservative alter-universe. You read them incorrectly, without quoting them.

                    • Mike Blackadder

                      Yes I did read these sections of the report. I said that Al-Muthanna was active at the time of the GULF war, not OIF. It’s impossible to have a productive conversation if you are arguing against a phantom Republicsn who isn’t here.

                      And again, regarding the half-truth that forms your argument; if it was the opinion of then UN that Saddam had no WMDs or materials to account for, if arms investigators didn’t have any work to do in Iraq for the 10 years preceding Bush Jr’s invasion, then what purpose was the UN serving in Ifaq after the gulf war? Why were there sanctions against Iraq at the time, and why did the UN have to negotiate re-entry to Iraq through the American threat of military action? Your story doesn’t add up.

                      If you now admit that in fact certain remains of the Iraqis arsenal still remained in Iraq (or at least was generally suspected of being there) including partially refined uranium, at the time of OIF then how do you argue that it would have been responsible to continue relying on sanctions when Saddam was openly defying the international community?

                      If intelligence suggests even today that Saddam having rebuilt a great deal of his chemical productions infrastructure, having retained the necessary expertise, and knowing based on testimony and common sense that it was fully his intention to rebuild his arsenal at the first opportunity, then how can you abide the option of allowing Saddam to defy the UN without consequence? Are you actually arguing that nobody other than Bush perceived a threat?

                      You are conflating the argument among most UN nations (and within the US) against military action with a false rhetoric that Saddam was not a threat to national security. Very few agree with that assessment, which you peddle as uncontroversial and I would hope you weren’t in favor of actually removing sanctions and oversight from Saddam’s unrepentant regime.

                    • Dan C

                      Based on your argument, there was no justification, no just war.

                      He had chemical infrastructure. And it had civilian use.

                      All the weapons were inventoried, stored, and no evidence of hidden caches, or production.

                      The UN monitoring was working.

                      2002 was better every day, safer for everyone than any day after March 2003, when not one criteria for a just war was met.

                      Done.

                    • Mike Blackadder

                      The UN didn’t even have access to Iraq by the time of the campaign. It was only after Bush gave Saddam an ultimatum that he let them back in. So I don’t see how it is that UN monitoring was ‘working’. It wasn’t working, Saddam was boldly defiant.

                      He had chemical infrastructure for civilian use, and every intention of using that infrastructure to continue with weapons development and every intention of continuing his ambitions of nuclear weaponry when sanctions were lifted. And he broke the conditions of the cease fire in defiance of UN oversight which is why the US had authority to invade. Saddam was given the option to leave Iraq or suffer invasion and he decided to stay.

                      First of all, the materials and resources at Saddam’s disposal were a threat particularly if they made it into the hands of global terrorists. If Iraq was not an immediate danger to the US due to Saddam’s weapons and immediate plans there was no way to know that without better access to Iraq facilities at the time, and if there was no immediate danger it’s silly to argue that there wasn’t longer term danger permitting Saddam to escape oversight and weaker sanctions. Unless you’re argument is to say that Saddam was trustworthy, benevolent and/or forgiving. You seem to suggest having absolute confidence in him as a man, or the kind of high nobility reminiscent of pre WWII Europe that you feel better getting hit with a dirty nuke than deny a vengeful, murderous tyrant the full benefit of the doubt. Bush didn’t actually have a choice, not if he took seriously his vow to protect Americans and diminish threats of terrorism.

                      Iraqis rejoiced the removal of Saddam from power. They were given new opportunity to escape the tyranny of Saddam and mend international relationships and eventually prosper. It is patently false that Iraq was more peaceful in 2002 than any time since then. They lived under a dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of his own people, and under stifling sanctions and war. And to the extent that they remained victims after 2003 not because American soldiers or George W Bush were oppressing or committing violence against them, but rather it was the very enemies who the US were seeking to engage were promoting violence, killing civilians and attacking Iraqi and American security forces. And it was the ‘peaceful’ nations and antagonistic partisans at home whose primary objective was to defy Bush at the expense of the well being of Iraqis and all those who were struggling for peace.

            • Dan C

              In fact, everything I said, with details, is confirmed by this document.

            • Dan C

              Yes. There was a program that managed the already identified. Declared-to-the-UN, and inventoried weapons of the Iraq pre-Desert storm era. Don’t confuse people with false data.

  • Wesley

    It’s a shame she doesn’t act like this all the time. For example, her white Jesus and Santa Clause rant and non-apology were just embarrassing

    • Dave G.

      What was embarrassing was that someone was trying to make Santa an issue of race in the first place. Her embarrassing stumble became the focus instead of focusing on the lunacy she was addressing.

      • Dan C

        “White Jesus.”

        Want to go on about that?

        This is your side’a third rail. She has a race problem and poorly understands what race in 21st century America is.

        No. Jesus was not white. And He and the Madonna have no problem showing up in visions as other than Semitic. Our Lady of the Guadalupe was not white.

        So…Megyn Kelly, who is asking tough questions, reveals much about how she views race with her “white Jesus” rant.

        • Mark S. (not for Shea)

          Her comments to Cheney only prove that even a broken clock can be right twice a day. No one is seriously disputing that the Fox clock is broken.

          • Dan C

            Fox News is ok. It’s bias is not huge in the news department, although present . The opinion shows are not at all representative of Truth. But that is just my opinion.

            • Dave G.

              Truth be told, Fox isn’t much different than other outlets, I’ve come to find out. Nor are the opinion shows very far off similar opinion shows in other outlets. Which might say more about the state of modern debate than we care to admit.

        • Dave G.

          My side? You mean what? Tell me about my side. I didn’t say what she said wasn’t foolish. But so was the latest stupid outrage she was addressing.

  • Thomas J. Ryan

    She’s probably trying make up with the base for supporting new forms of marriage

  • Dan C

    For as difficult a question, I bet she had to write and submit questions to Cheney and his people before being allowed to interview him.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)
  • Eve Fisher

    She left out that he promised that Iraqi oil would pay for the war, but otherwise, surprisingly good job.

  • http://www.parafool.com/ victor

    Roger Ailes doesn’t fire blondes.

  • Pat Roberts

    I refuse to watch or listen to FAUX!

    • Guest

      Iraq today!

    • Dave G.

      Sadly, no worse than the rest of the media. Example: food prices continue to skyrocket and gas prices are teetering near 4.00 while wages continue to stagnate. When Bush was president? Round the clock headline news. Now? Don’t let the crickets deafen you. I fear there is no longer a press, only propaganda counting on willful minds to back them up. Fox and the others, just different sides of the same coin.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X