It’s what they do. No matter what the conversation is, these people always try to bring it back to Benghazi.
What makes the story interesting though, is what happened at Fox News when Laura Ingraham, one of the guests on the Fox Sundays talk show, managed to infuse Benghazi in a conversation about President Obama’s West Point speech. Making everything about Benghazi is a normal procedure at the Fox News network. But this time, it seems that even those at Fox were tired of the Benghazi bottom line to every conversation. And when Ingraham brought it up, she was quickly laughed at.
“The idea that the president goes to West Point and says ‘Look, we’ve never been stronger relative to the rest of the world’ — I’m sorry, that doesn’t even pass the straight-face test,” Ingraham said. “Just on an economic front, forget our declining influence across the globe. So I thought it was a very odd speech and it was not well received, and that didn’t surprise me at all given its tenor and its tone.”
After another guest on the show pointed out that President Obama did the two most important things required of any president, that is, protecting the nation and keeping us from unnecessary war, Laura Ingraham could not let that one slide. She could not see or hear President Obama get any credit for anything. And that is when the Benghazi comparison came out.
“We didn’t protect the Benghazi diplomatic mission on 9/11/12. We kind of failed on that regard, don’t you think, Bob?” she said. “That is the country.”
“Well, you are underscoring my point that this will never go away, at least with you,” Woodward said, drawing laughter from the panelists.
Montel Williams must be auditioning for a job at Fox News and with this performance, Murdock has to be measuring the drapes in Montel new office space.
The former talk show host appeared on Fox News tasked with one thing, to criticize President Obama’s speech at West Point. What apparently ticked off Williams was obviously not what the president said – his message about reducing America’s role in unnecessary wars, thus, saving the lives of troops who will otherwise be injured or even killed for absolutely no reason like many were in Iraq. No, critics like Montel Williams don’t listen to what is actually said. Montel is angry because he thinks the president should have used the occasion to apologize again for what’s happening at the VA.
“The president just promised $5 billion for terrorists around the world?! At West Point?!” Williams said. “Where he could have used the day to say, ‘I’m sorry for the pain that I’ve caused you, the families, and I’m gonna fix it today!’”
Of course, problems at the VA didn’t start when the president was inaugurated some six years ago, but, critics cannot remember past 2008.
Williams continued.
“I’m angry because, you know, we made a promise. When I stood with my hand up proudly, I said, ‘I do solemnly swear and affirm to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic and I will bear true faith.’ I went through my oath,” Williams said.
“I told the world I’m willing to put my life on the line and die for you. Now, our guys went over. They left body parts. Some of them never made it back. Some of them are here now and their souls are still there. And we have the audacity to turn our back on them right this second?”
If you listen to this guy bellowing his call of unbelief at this administration, you will easily forget who actually started these wars and who is ending them. And you will forget that it is because of these wars why there are many more veterans now, and why “some left body parts” in the warzone while others “never made it back.”
If you listen to Montel Williams scream about the “audacity” of the president for not apologizing, you might wonder where he was when Bush and Cheney said they have nothing to apologize for, even going as far as saying they would do it all over again. And you might ask yourself why, why is Montell not seeing the true culprits here? That Bush and Cheney lied us into these wars that took the lives of over 4000 troops, wars that took limbs from our fellow Americans and caused tremendous pain and anguish to countless others.
And you might wonder what, what is Montel trying to gain with his faux outburst at this president who is actually ending the wars, bringing our troops home and helping our veterans.
What is he trying to gain? A Montel Williams show on Faux? Hmmmm!
“So with every issue both sides pick stories to support their own opinions. But sometimes it’s just too easy, in fact, it’s like stealing candy from a baby – or from a store that advertises its gun-free status.”
That’s how Fox News host Greg Gutfeld began celebrating the unfortunate news that criminals, people breaking the law, robbed at store at gunpoint.
A restaurant in North Carolina was robbed at gunpoint on Sunday, two pistol-packers assaulted two workers, but thankfully no one died.
Oddly, the store had a sign on the door [smirk] clearly stating, no guns, including concealed weapons. I know! The robbers totally ignored the sign! Well, they really didn’t ignore it at all. They saw it as an invitation, suggesting that the only guns there at the restaurant squirt soda. Hell, why not make a sign that says, “robbers welcome, the cash register’s up front, the safe’s in the back, the combination is Shakira’s birthday . . . touting gun-free zones only makes you a richer target . . . .”
Is Gutfeld equally thrilled that a bunch of liberal, likely unarmed, California kids were recently gunned down by Elliot Rodger?
It’s hard not to laugh at Gutfeld’s desperate attempt to tie lack of artillery in that NC restaurant to inviting a robbery, but it’s scary sad too.
First of all, Gutfeld is part of the same group of rabble-rousing gun-toters who tout 2nd Amendment rights based largely on the premise that the bad guys aren’t going to follow rules; and yet, by Gutfeld’s twisted logic, any store, restaurant, gas station, fast food restaurant or other business that doesn’t post a sign stating “Don’t rob us, we’re armed,” has put itself at risk of armed robbery because, of course, robbers read, believe and heed every posted sign. For Pete’s sake, has Gutfeld never heard of banks being robbed despite armed security, cops being killed despite guns on their belts, mass murders being committed despite armed civilians in the vicinity?
First, Robi Ludwig went on Fox News after the shooting in California and said that the mass shooting could have been caused by the shooter not being able to cope with his “homosexual impulses.”
Ludwig, a spokesperson for Coldwell Banker, apparently did not check with her employer before making that statements. After her appearance on the Fox, a concerned viewer shared Ludwig’s statement with Coldwell Banker. The viewer – Scott Wooledge – also asked, “I believe she is a spokesperson of yours, correct?”
Coldwell replied with this: “Dr. Robi’s comments on the tragedy in Santa Barbara do not represent the opinions of Coldwell Banker. Therefore at this time we feel it best to part ways with her as our lifestyle real estate correspondent.”
Now I’m not the brightest one in the class, but it sure sounds like Mr. Reilly is suggesting that we just leave the racists alone. Which then mean that if we’re not pointing out their hate and racism, aren’t we in fact enabling them through our silence? Like Bill O’ and his ilk at Fox News are doing now?
See their love fest with Cliven Bundy for reference.
Yes, you heard that right. A press conference on jobs – although it was held by Republicans so basically it was just a sham – couldn’t keep the attention of the “News” people at Fox. The network turned away from the press conference until “more interesting” Benghazi questions were asked.
Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi! It the cry of the right-wing media led by Fox News and parroted by Congressional Republicans like John Boehner and Darrell Issa!
But who was screaming Iraq! Iraq! Iraq! Oh, you don’t remember Iraq? That’s the war Bush and Cheney led the United States into, based solely on a lie, a made up story, falsehoods, intentionally telling inaccurate information with the intent to deceive, you know, liar liar pants on fire!
Yes, that war.
So back to my question. Who exactly from the right-wing media was screaming from the hilltops that we need to bring out troops home, as they dropped one by one in the fields of Iraq? Was Fox, or anyone in the conservative media, or anyone in th Republican congress denouncing the lies that started a war that ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people?
No. Their voices of dissent were nowhere to be heard. As a matter of fact, they were the ones making excuses for why we were there in the first place. They were the ones defending the lies and the falsehoods and the made up stories, simply because… a Republican was in the White House.
These people are not “patriots!” When the troops – the true patriots – were dying by the thousands in a war started based on intentionally misleading information, these Republicans and their Fox News Republican media machine were the ones pushing for more patriots to die! For American troops to remain and continue the fight, simply because their ideology matched the people running the government.
Four people died in Benghazi. Yes, that too was a tragedy. But according to a phrase by President Obama, there is no there there, and continuing to beat this dead horse when you were silent when thousands more gave their lives because of your lies, is a tad bit hypocritical, don’t you think Fox News? Or maybe the question should be, do you think?
But I digress.
John Stewart made this video on the Fox and Republican hypocrites and their Benghazi fascination. “I commend you for finally getting in touch with your inner outrage, because if I remember correctly from the previous decade, it was an emotion you did not seem comfortable addressing or expressing,” he said.
The good olé boys over at Fox News. It’s where you get your news, right? Well this is your “news” from your ‘Fair and Balanced’ “news” network.
A recent segment on Fox took America’s attention away from the fact that 288,000 jobs were created in April, lowering the unemployment rate once again to 6.3%. Fox, the “news” people felt our attention would be much better served if it is focused on… Benghazi!
So in cahoots with the pretend “Patriots” in the Republican party, a massive diversion effort went into full swing. And now, once again, after tens of thousands of documents submitted, millions of dollars spent, and numerous investigations conducted, we are now, once again talking about… Benghazi!
America, I know you todd about thank god you’re ready, but here is your news.
In a recent segment, Fox managed to create a scenario where Hillary Clinton is assassinated to prove another false Benghazi point. Fox’s Wayne Rogers is credited with this bit of right wing nuttery;
Imagine the following. Imagine that Hillary Clinton runs for president, and gets assassinated in the process.
And somebody shows up, a congressman, and says, ‘Well, what difference does it make anyway?’ I mean, The New York Times would have that on the front page!
The segment was in reference to a testimony Hillary Clinton gave about Benghazi years ago, and a point she made that the focus now should be on how to prevent another Benghazi from happening, instead of wasting time trying to figure out if the attackers were terrorists or angry movie critics.
The Fox thought a Clinton assassination scenario would be a great way to prove their dumb point.
But then again, proving dumb points is what the Fox does best.
Well, what else do you expect from Fox? This is their message – that racism is dead and whatever little slither there is left, belongs to that slither along. This message is supported by racists and further underlined by the Supreme Court in last week’s Affirmative Action ruling. These folks really think racism is dead!
Ed Henry has been working hard, overtime even to get under President Obama’s skin. His boss over at Fox demands it, so every chance Henry gets, he goes after the president with suggestive questions. The answers from the president usually don’t matter, it’s the message in Henry’s question that counts to his boss at Fox and the people who watch that station.
Take this question for example. The president is wrapping up an overseas trip, presently in the Philippines. At a press conference, Fox’s Ed Henry decided that this would be the perfect place to criticize the President’s foreign policy and asked this suggestive question:
“As you end this trip, I don’t think I have to remind you there have been a lot of unflattering portraits of your foreign policy right now. And rather than get into all the details or red lines, excedera, I’d like to give you a chance to lay out what your vision is more than five years into office, what you think the Obama doctrine is in terms of what your guiding principle is on all of these crises, and how you answer those critics who say they think the doctrine is weakness.”
But Henry probably didn’t get the memo that the president was in his second term and has no reason to sugarcoat his answer. From his podium, Obama looked at Henry and saw straight through him. He knew what Henry was doing and decided that a good smack down of the Fox worker was in order.
The President:
“Well, Ed, I doubt that I’m going to have time to lay out my entire foreign policy doctrine, and there are actually some complimentary pieces as well about my foreign policy, but I’m not sure you ran them.”
The President then went on to attack those criticisms, point by point, noting that “Typically, criticism of our foreign policy has been directed at the failure to use military force,” and asking “why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a decade of war at enormous costs to our troops and to our budget? And what is it exactly that these critics think would have been accomplished?”
“My job as Commander-in-Chief is to deploy military force as a last resort, and to deploy it wisely,” he continued. “And, frankly, most of the foreign policy commentators that have questioned our policies would go headlong into a bunch of military adventures that the American people had no interest in participating in and would not advance our core security interests.”
On Syria, the President pointed out that his critics “say, no, no, no, we don’t mean sending in troops,” and asked “Well, what do you mean?”
“Well, you should be assisting the opposition — well, we’re assisting the opposition,” President Obama said, then asked “What else do you mean? Well, perhaps you should have taken a strike in Syria to get chemical weapons out of Syria. Well, it turns out we’re getting chemical weapons out of Syria without having initiated a strike. So what else are you talking about? And at that point it kind of trails off.”
On Ukraine, the President asked of those critics, “What else should we be doing? Well, we shouldn’t be putting troops in, the critics will say. That’s not what we mean. Well, okay, what are you saying? Well, we should be arming the Ukrainians more. Do people actually think that somehow us sending some additional arms into Ukraine could potentially deter the Russian army? Or are we more likely to deter them by applying the sort of international pressure, diplomatic pressure and economic pressure that we’re applying?”
“The point is that for some reason many who were proponents of what I consider to be a disastrous decision to go into Iraq haven’t really learned the lesson of the last decade, and they keep on just playing the same note over and over again,” the President said. “Why? I don’t know.”
President Obama went on to take another shot at the political media, telling Henry that the U.S. doesn’t take actions “because somebody sitting in an office in Washington or New York think it would look strong. That’s not how we make foreign policy. And if you look at the results of what we’ve done over the last five years, it is fair to say that our alliances are stronger, our partnerships are stronger, and in the Asia Pacific region, just to take one example, we are much better positioned to work with the peoples here on a whole range of issues of mutual interest.”
Howard Kurtz built a name for himself as a media critic when he was employed at CNN. So his decision to work for the pits at Fox News was mind-boggling to say the least. But something happened over at Fox that has Howard pointing fingers and naming names, reminiscent of his days at CNN. And that something is Cliven Bundy!
Clive Bundy it seemed had an open invitation to appear on any Fox News show he chose, at any time he wanted. Bundy you may recall, is the Navada rancher who has broken the law for over 20 years and just because he broke the laws, was crowned a hero by Fox News and the Republican party. Bundy then got the support of militia groups calling themselves “Patriots.” These “patriots” came armed with guns with one goal – to make sure Bundy continue breaking the law.
But as fate would have it, Bundy is also a racist.
According to the New York Times and verified by a video of the man himself talking, Bundy has some rather racist views about black people. On the video, Bundy was seen and heard saying that blacks would have been better off under slavery, because all they do nowadays is sit on their porch waiting for a government handout and aborting their babies… and putting their men in jail!
After his views were publicized, Fox News – the same folks who had Bundy on camera so much, he could have shared office space with Bill O’ Reilly – Fox decided that the best way to handle their racist hero was to ignore the story.
For over 9 hours after the Bundy’s racism surfaced, Fox News stayed silent. Even shutting down a Democrat when he tried to mention Bundy’s name on air.
Howard Kurtz decided that he would be the voice of reason and pointed out the hypocrisy of his employer and his fellow co workers for trying to keep the story from their loyal viewers. On his Sunday show, Kurtz took them to task!
“In my view, Fox News fell seriously short on this story on Thursday,” Kurtz said. “All day long until Special Report at 6 p.m. ET, there was virtually no mention of these racist remarks by Cliven Bundy when everybody else was covering it.”
“And I think that to ignore a major story that was on the front page of The New York Times at a time when the network, among others, had devoted a lot of time to covering this story and to building up Cliven Bundy, I think that gives ammunition to Fox’s detractors.”
So true Howard, but Fox’s silence on this matter is just one of thousands, maybe millions of other areas where ammunition presents itself for, as you say, “detractors.”
You all know the story that the New York Times broke, a brand new story that showed Cliven Bundy to be an in your face racist. Fox News, as I’m sure you know, has been defending Bundy from day one, with multiple interviews on the so-called “news” network and promoting his story as if he’s the second coming of Christ. But since the Times story broke, Fox News has avoided the story like it’s the plague.
Today, Fox tried to avoid Bundy and continue their usual talking points sharing any and all stories about Obama and what they think are Obama’s failures. They had a panel and a topic – The Keystone Pipeline and the fact that Obama is not working fast enough to approve the darn thing.
Among the panelists was Joe Trippi, a non apologetic Democrat who, after making his statement on the Pipeline tried to throw in a comparison to the racist Cliven Bundy, but before he could finish his statement, the Fox Host was tripping all over herself trying to keep the story from getting out to their Fox audience.
Trippi pointed out that delays in approving the pipeline were connected to a court case in Nebraska.
“And the same people, by the way, who argue about Bundy ranch that the feds are coming in…” was all that Trippi could say before being cut off by Carlson.
“Alright, let’s not bring that into this discussion,” she said reflexively. “I don’t want to bring that into this discussion!”
At that point, she turned to the conservative guest to get the segment back on track.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
