Fox News Wastes No Time Attacking NY Times Benghazi Report

Not surprisingly, Fox News has gotten to work to do its best to attack the detailed and credible report published yesterday by the New York Times that destroyed much of the Republican/Fox News conspiracy theory about Benghazi. Today, on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace helped the effort along.

As Heather at Crooks and Liars wrote last night:

Fox “news” has got way too much time invested in pushing their misleading and outright lying talking points and fake outrage over their drummed up Benghazi “scandal” and they’re not about to let it go now.

This Saturday on Fox’s America’s News Headquarters, hosts Jamie Colby, Gregg Jarrett and correspondent Catherine Herridge did their best to poo-poo the reporting by the New York Times, citing Intelligence Committee Chair Rep. Mike Rogers and his claims that al-Quada was involved.

The downplaying on today's Fox News Sunday started with the show’s placement of its discussion of the Times report. Some might say Fox buried it. The lead off story was about ObamaCare and the second interview was headlined as a discussion about Edward Snowden and the NSA.

It just so happened that Rogers was a guest for the NSA discussion. To his credit, however, Wallace led off the NSA discussion with a question about Benghazi to Rogers: “Congressman Rogers, I think it’s fair to say that The Times report directly contradicts what you’ve been saying.”

Of course, Wallace allowed plenty of time for Rogers to rebut. And while Wallace didn’t suggest any motives for Republicans’ obsession about Benghazi (or Fox News’ equally obsessive lapdog coverage of same), he did overtly suggest that the Times’ report was an attempt to help Hillary Clinton’s presidential chances. From The Fox News transcript:

WALLACE: Do you think there is a political motivation to this “Times” report? Some people have suggested, well, this is trying to clear the deck for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

ROGERS: Yes. I don’t know, but I found it was interesting that there’s this rollout of stories, including Susan Rice, would go on TV and have a direct discussion, when we still have ongoing investigation in the House Intelligence Committee.

WALLACE: But, again, do you think that’s a different tactic?

ROGERS: I find the timing odd. I don’t want to speculate on why they might do it. But I can tell you that the information that’s being presented in a way that we’ve heard before and through the investigation have been able to determine is not accurate in its portrayal.

WALLACE: Congressman Schiff (D-CA), does “The Times” report in your opinion exonerate the Obama administration from the president, to Susan Rice, to Hillary Clinton?

Republican House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa doubled down on his “Benghazi cover up” conspiracy theory today on Meet the Press. So there’s no reason to think Fox News will let the newly uncovered information stand in the way of one of their longest-running conspiracy theories. Especially not when they’re so ready to use it against Clinton.

Do you like this post?

Showing 11 reactions

commented 2013-12-30 22:53:01 -0500 · Flag

@ Sam Vasteal: “We need to be honest… the NY Times is simply starting Hillary’s run for election.”

Really, Sam? The NYT is starting an election run for a candidacy that hasn’t been declared?

Must be more of that rightwingnut mind-reading.

(BTW, Sam Vasteal = Tom Lohmann)

.

commented 2013-12-30 21:27:30 -0500 · Flag

No need to respond to tom any more. His comments have been deleted from public view and he has been banned.

commented 2013-12-30 18:48:14 -0500 · Flag

Comment deleted but saved in our software, along with author’s identifying info.

commented 2013-12-30 17:09:57 -0500 · Flag

Great response by Steve Benen to the GOP critics of the NYT article:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/one-misguided-theory-deserves-another

What is really disturbing is the way in which Kirkpatrick’s article is being misquoted and the false claims from people who obviously hadn’t read the article. The NYT piece does not paint the administration in a highly positive light at all! Here is Kirkpatrick correcting David Gregory on what he wrote (jump to the 2:26 mark):
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/author-of-ny-times-benghazi-report-susan-rice-made-some-clear-misstatements/

commented 2013-12-30 13:57:14 -0500 · Flag

Sam, since you’re such an expert, please explain to us what information you have to disprove the Times’ report? Please site sources, too, which I’m sure you must have since you’re such a truth lover and believer in non-biased sources.

Also, I’m sure this must have been an oversight in your reading of the Times article – before you dismissed it as merely a ploy to help Hillary Clinton get elected – but the article did not say “this happened because of a You Tube video.” The article said that the video played a large part but was not the only cause of the attack.

Oh, and one other thing? You quack a lot like a troll sock puppet. You may respond if you have facts to back up your argument and you can be civil and respectful. But one more insult at us and you’ll be banned. Without further notice.

commented 2013-12-30 12:00:24 -0500 · Flag

Wastes no time? Not at all, they had the truth long ago.

I can’t believe the number of fools still think this happened because of a YouTube video. How many so called “protesters” have trucks delivering mortars to their bunker while they are attacking?

Where are these people when I want to sell my used car? It reminds me of a Richard Pryor’s standup where he describe sitting in court watch a lawyer arguing a case:

“Your honor, my client was simply trying to buy a hospital in the Bahamas for his ailing grandmother when they arrested him with 100 pounds of cocaine. "

We need to be honest… the NY Times is simply starting Hillary’s run for election. We’ll see many more lies like this before this is all over and the Times won’t be the only ones.

commented 2013-12-30 11:30:43 -0500 · Flag

“Some people have suggested” is just what the on-air talent finds palatable for what is suggested to them by the “Fox News morning memo.”
It would seem “staged” if they said “Our bosses require us to spread this propaganda.”

commented 2013-12-30 11:16:44 -0500 · Flag

“Some people have suggested” is a variation of the standard Fux Noise “Some people say” which was popularized by Daddy Steve Douchebag.

Both phrases have similar meaning: i.e. As usual, we at Fux Noise have not done jackshit in terms of research and fact-checking. But we have a mandatory meme to spew into tiny teabagger brains. The “some” in “some say” really doesn’t exist.

commented 2013-12-30 00:48:17 -0500 · Flag

WALLACE: Do you think there is a political motivation to this “Times” report? Some people have suggested, well, this is trying to clear the deck for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Those “people” being Roger Ailes and Rush Limbaugh and other right-wingers who should be in a padded room in Arkham Asylum. They’d fit right in with the likes of the Joker, the Riddler, Killer Croc and the Mad Hatter.

commented 2013-12-29 22:02:55 -0500 · Flag

“Some people have suggested” is all that Faux uses as fact-checking. Of course, the suggestions just happen to toe the line for the Faux agenda.

commented 2013-12-29 21:51:26 -0500 · Flag

Benghazi is a “scandal” only for partisan hacks like Rogers and Firebug Issa and their propaganda handmaidens like Fux Noise. It will remain a “scandal” as long as Hillary Clinton remains a viable Presidential candidate. Firebug Issa will keep his kangaroo court hearings churning until the 2016 election.