Bizarro World is contemplating a lawsuit against Fox News for infringing on their patented methods of presenting a worldview that is wholly inconsistent with reality.
For more evidence of this credibility gap, get the acclaimed ebook:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Community’s Assault on Truth
Yesterday on Fox News Sunday, anchor Chris Wallace interviewed former vice-president Dick Cheney and asked him to comment on the NSA surveillance program. Cheney, after saying that he doesn’t “pay a lot of attention to what Barack Obama says,” and admitting that he’s “not a fan,” launches into this mind-boggling absurdity:
“The problem is the guy has failed to be forthright and honest and credible on things like Benghazi and the IRS. So, he’s got no credibility.”
For Cheney to impugn the credibility of anyone takes the balls of a wooly mammoth. It was Cheney who said that he knew exactly where Saddam Hussein was hiding his chemical weapons (“…in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”) It was Cheney who insisted that there was “overwhelming evidence” of a relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda and that a meeting between 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official was “pretty well confirmed.” It was Cheney who declared that Saddam “has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” None of these things were true, but the consequences of his lies were more than 4,000 dead American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians.
Also yesterday, on Fox & Friends Sunday, there was an Idiot-palooza fest with the three co-hosts. Let’s just let the kids on the curvy couch speak speak for themselves:
Clayton Morris: Let’s say that Snowden had spilled the beans during the Bush administration. How would this be different? I don’t think there’d be a hubbub like there is now. [Certainly not on Fox News, there wouldn’t]
Alisyn Camerota: And the mood and the days after 9/11 was possibly much more trusting of government. [Because people always trust government right after it fails to prevent the worst terrorist attack in history]
Jesse Watters: You didn’t really have that kind of credibility crisis during the Bush administration than the way you have right now. [See Dick Cheney above]
And not to be left out, the newest Fox News Contributor (actually just a retread who begged to return to the fold), Sarah Palin, appeared on Fox & Friends this morning to explain why the Obama administration cannot be believed or trusted to manage national security. Palin’s perspective on the issue of the NSA conducting broadly intrusive surveillance on innocent Americans was that it is perfectly OK if you like the administration that is doing the intruding.
These are the people Fox News has chosen to be their spokespersons for credibility. And while it may seem like an amazingly stupid choice, it isn’t really much worse than their regular lineup of hacks and fabulists. Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, and the rest routinely spew rhetoric at least as demented as this. Just wait for the next appearance of contributors like Allen West or Donald Trump. Credibility is a word that none of these cretins can even define.
Fox so called News is wrong about most things most of the time! It’s amazing really that a self proclaimed News organization can spread so many falsehoods and misinformation but when that is your core mission, then it really isn’t surprising.
“… in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
That was Rumsfeld.
Aargh…You’re right. Well, close enough. I’m pretty sure that Rumsefeld and Cheney are clones of each other.
lol, yeah close enuff. if not that, then they both suckled the same tit, im sure.
What are you doing demeaning a person’s credibility just because he stutters? Stuttering has nothing to do with it, just ask Mel Tillis or James Earl Jones–or if he were still alive–King George VI. Your ad hominem attack attempting to diminish someone’s credibility serves only to diminish your own, because an ad hominem in itself is a fallacy of logic. If you must attack someone, attack his or her facts or logic, not the way one speaks. It’s WHAT a person says that counts, now HOW he says it. By descending to using an ad hominem, you need to focus on destroying the shallow arguments we mutually detest, and thereby avoid bringing shame on all us tolerant liberals.
Relax. That was a reference to Howard Stern’s sidekick, “Stuttering John,” because that is about the level of Watters’ reporting credibility.