From the November 25 edition of Fox News' Special Report:
Loading the player reg...
From the October 21 edition of Fox News' Special Report With Bret Baier:
Loading the player reg...
From the October 15 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
Loading the player reg...
Washington Post columnist George Will ignored Colorado GOP Senate candidate Cory Gardner's controversial policy positions on women's rights to smear Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) as a one issue candidate. But Gardner has supported measures that would severely limit women's reproductive choice.
On October 10, the Denver Post editorial board endorsed Republican Cory Gardner citing Udall's prioritization of what the Post called "his obnoxious one-issue campaign" on women's issues like abortion.
George Will parroted the Post's criticism of Udall on the October 14 edition Special Report with Bret Baier. Will claimed that "the whole war on women thing has been really worn out by this point," adding that the issue has been settled because contraception and abortion rights have been firmly ingrained in America for more than 40 years:
Fox News amplified the discredited right-wing claim that the legalization of same-sex marriage plays a part in the declining rate of heterosexual marriage.
On the October 13 edition of Special Report, host Bret Baier claimed "traditional marriage" has faced a number of obstacles this year, including the legalization of same-sex marriage in Alaska. Fox correspondent Shannon Bream cited a variety of factors that could explain the decline in heterosexual marriage, including the legalization of same-sex marriage in many states:
The idea that same-sex marriage somehow discourages heterosexual marriage has been embraced by extreme anti-LGBT rights groups like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, but has no basis in fact.
The Atlantic also pointed out that the link is unsubstantiated, because the decline in heterosexual marriage came before the rise of gay marriage:
Out-of-wedlock births and delayed marriage were already underway before the 1990s, when gay acceptance took off. This suggests that gay marriage isn't leading to the decline of marriage. Rather, the "decline" of marriage happened to pique media interest at the same time that homophobia got smoked -- in entertainment, in federal law, and in wedding chapels.
A deleterious effect on rates of opposite sex marriage has been argued to be a motivating factor for both the withholding and the elimination of existing rights of same sex couples to marry by policy makers-including presiding justices of current litigation over the rights of same sex couples to legally marry. Such claims do not appear credible in the face of the existing evidence, and we conclude that rates of opposite sex marriages are not affected by legalization of same sex civil unions or same sex marriages.
Fox News hyped a Watchdog.org study purporting to show Colorado recipients of government assistance programs accessed the government funds from exotic, out-of-state locations, suggesting the recipients were on lavish vacations. But Fox's report failed to mention that the study found only two percent of withdrawals were made outside of Colorado.
An October 6 Watchdog.org report found that $3.8 million was withdrawn by Colorado recipients of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program (TANF), commonly referred to as "welfare," outside the state in the past two years. The study cited some of the more "exotic" places where these withdrawals had occurred, such as Las Vegas, Hawaii and the Virgin Islands.
Fox hyped the study on the October 8 edition of Fox and Friends. Co-host Elizabeth Hasselbeck interviewed Colorado State Representative Tim Dore (R) about the report, asking him how he plans to "specifically stop this spending of hard-earned tax dollars on vacation spots and strip clubs?"
Later, Special Report host Bret Baier covered the study claiming "your tax dollars are helping welfare recipients enjoy vacations at some very exotic destinations."
But Fox's coverage failed to note that Watchdog.org's study found that out-of-state withdrawals represented just 2 percent of Colorado program recipients' ATM withdrawals, and only 1.7 percent of withdrawals outside states bordering Colorado. The purported abuse is even more absurd for the specific destinations Fox highlighted: the $6,451 withdrawn in Hawaii, for example, represents 0.003 percent of the $170 million total.
Fox has a history of hyping misleading stories to demonize government assistance. Last month, Fox & Friends falsely claimed that TANF money in Colorado was being used to buy marijuana, leading to the passage of two pieces of legislation in the United States House of Representatives.
Fox News' Gretchen Carlson urged President Obama to follow "precedent" set by President George W. Bush and release 18 months of daily intelligence briefings to prove what his administration knew about the rise of the Islamic State (ISIS) -- despite the fact that Bush released only one intelligence briefing after years of pressure.
Fox has fixated on Obama's Presidential Daily Briefs (PDB) amid ongoing U.S. air strikes against the Islamic State, reviving long debunked claims that the president skipped his scheduled briefings and thus missed intelligence on the terror group. The October 1 edition of The Real Story With Gretchen Carlson took a similar route, as Carlson and network anchor Bret Baier discussed a recent call by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) for Obama to release 18 months of his PDB in order to prove when he first learned of the Islamic State from the intelligence community. According to Carlson, "President Bush did do it, so there is precedent for this," and the pair speculated about the chances of Obama doing the same now. Baier predicted that it was "not likely," adding, "There is a precedent here, in that, the last time we dealt with a big intelligence question prior to 9/11, the 9/11 Commission met with President Bush and President Bush did come forward with the Presidential Daily Briefs."
Though idealized by Carlson and Baier, Bush's "precedent" on releasing PDBs is not one of disclosure.
Under pressure from the 9/11 Commission, the Bush administration fought the release of PDBs for two years. Ultimately, they released only one, titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US," years after the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. From The New York Times:
On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief -- and only that daily brief -- in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document's significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda's history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.
That is, unless it was read in conjunction with the daily briefs preceding Aug. 6, the ones the Bush administration would not release. While those documents are still not public, I have read excerpts from many of them, along with other recently declassified records, and come to an inescapable conclusion: the administration's reaction to what Mr. Bush was told in the weeks before that infamous briefing reflected significantly more negligence than has been disclosed. In other words, the Aug. 6 document, for all of the controversy it provoked, is not nearly as shocking as the briefs that came before it.
Fox News' Special Report left out necessary context when previewing former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's upcoming interview with 60 Minutes in which he stated, "it was important for us to maintain a presence in Iraq."
During his September 19 coverage of Panetta's statement, host Bret Baier depicted Panetta's account of the 2011 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq as the latest in "a very public back-and-forth between the White House and the Pentagon." Baier added, "Now this weekend, 60 Minutes has an interview with former CIA director and former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in which he will say the U.S. should not have pulled out all of its troops out of Iraq in 2011":
But Baier failed to mention that the Iraqi government refused a deal to allow U.S. military forces to stay in Iraq. As the New York Times reported in 2011, "Iraqis were unwilling to accept" the terms of a Status of Forces Agreement to leave thousands of troops as a residual force. Fox News has repeatedly failed to mention this important detail.
During his 60 Minutes interview with Panetta, CBS' Scott Pelley provided the crucial bit of context that the Iraqi government "didn't want the U.S. force." Watch:
From the September 15 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
Loading the player reg...
From the September 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report With Bret Baier:
Loading the player reg...
Fox News exploited witnesses to the Benghazi attacks to further its Benghazi hoax just days before a GOP-led select committee holds its first public hearing, even though these witnesses were previously interviewed in congressional investigations that months ago debunked claims made during the Fox News Reporting: 13 Hours at Benghazi special.
The September 5 Fox special featured interviews with three CIA security contractors who were present in Benghazi during the September 2012 attacks, and aimed to answer "Whether or not military assistance was requested by the security team and whether orders from above hindered their response to the violence that claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans." The chairman of the Benghazi Select Committee already took notice of the Fox program and used it to justify the establishment of his committee.
The witnesses on Fox mentioned that they requested the support of combat aircraft and insisted, contrary to multiple independent and congressional reports, that they were told to "stand down" by the chief of the CIA base in Benghazi. They later claimed that if there had been no delay, Ambassador Stevens would still be alive:
What Fox failed to mention was that the CIA officers and contractors present in Libya during the attacks were previously interviewed by Congress in private testimony before a House intelligence subcommittee. This testimony destroyed the myths that anyone had been ordered to "stand down" and that a speedier response would have saved more lives.
A December 2013 Associated Press report on this testimony cited Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), "who heads a House intelligence subcommittee that interviewed the employees," to explain that the CIA personnel were fully aware there would be no air support:
He explained that the lack of air support was clear to all CIA employees working in Libya because of a 2011 CIA memorandum sent to employees after NATO forces ended their mission in support of the Libyan revolution.
One contractor testified that he shouted repeatedly over the agency's radio system to his CIA security boss that they should request combat aircraft. But the security chief explained to lawmakers that he ignored his subordinate's demands because he said he knew that no combat aircraft were available for such a mission, Westmoreland said.
The testimony revealed that there was a delay in the CIA response team departing to the aid of those under attack at the diplomatic facility in an attempt to round up additional support for them from a local Libyan militia, and that "[s]ome CIA security contractors disagreed with their bosses and wanted to move more quickly." Westmoreland told AP that "he believes this disagreement was the source of allegations that the CIA ordered security personnel to 'stand down' and not help the people inside the diplomatic mission."
The full report from the GOP-led House Intelligence Committee ultimately found that "There was no 'stand-down order' given to American personnel attempting to offer assistance that evening," according to Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA), a member of the committee. The Senate Intelligence Committee and independent Accountability Review Board also found that no orders from above obstructed the rescue operation, despite the suggestion by Fox that this occurred.
The AP report also said of the testimony by the CIA officers and contractors present in Libya during the attack:
None of those who testified said a quicker response would have saved the lives of Stevens and communications specialist Sean Smith at the temporary diplomatic facility.
The statements made by the CIA contractors in this Fox special are ultimately old news and don't match up with their testimony in a congressional investigation that debunked many of the network's narratives about the attacks.
After multiple investigations concluded that no "stand down" order was given to security personnel responding to the 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Fox News alleged that the delay security personnel took to enlist support amounted to a "stand down" order.
On the September 5 edition of Special Report, host Bret Baier once again hyped the asked-and-answered question from his Fox News special, "13 Hours at Benghazi," based on the accounts of three CIA security personnel who alleged they were delayed in responding to the diplomatic facility under attack in Benghazi, Libya. Baier criticized the "semantics" used by deputy State Department spokesperson Marie Harf, who during a press briefing explained that "there was no stand-down order" but there was a short delay "for very good security reasons to get additional backup and additional weapons" for the security personnel before responding to the attack.
Fox contributor Steve Hayes chided Harf, saying that "she admits that there was a delay" which is "the same thing" as a stand down order. Fox's Charles Krauthammer added that "there is no distinction between stand down and don't go."
Fox News' upcoming special report on Benghazi, which examines questions that have already been answered repeatedly by multiple congressional and independent investigations, is being used by Benghazi Select Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-SC) to justify the establishment of his redundant select committee.
The special, titled "13 Hours at Benghazi" and hosted by Special Report's Bret Baier on September 5, is slated to explore "Whether or not military assistance was requested by the security team and whether orders from above hindered their response to the violence that claimed the lives of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans." A Special Report segment teased the special by highlighting the reaction of congressional lawmakers including Benghazi Select Committee Chair Gowdy, who said in a press release:
[I]n response to recent reports from security personnel on the ground in Benghazi:
"The Committee has heard of these concerns and they go to the heart of why Congress established this Committee--to determine all of the facts of what happened in Benghazi before, during and after the terrorist attack that day. We welcome the opportunity, and expect, to talk to personnel who were on the ground in Benghazi, their superiors, and anyone with relevant information related to the Benghazi terrorist attack. There are still facts to learn about Benghazi and information that needs to be explained in greater detail to the American people. And this Committee will do just that."
As the Daily Beast's Eli Lake explained, on the night of the attacks there was a 23-minute delay between the initial distress call from the diplomatic facility in Benghazi and when the CIA contractors from the nearby CIA Annex departed to rescue the Americans there. Despite suggestions from some in the intelligence community that this delay hindered their rescue effort, repeated investigations found no evidence that the CIA operatives were delayed by "orders from above," as Fox's announcement suggests.
Fox News' Special Report continued the network's attempts to push the myth that a "stand down order" was issued to American security personnel on the ground during the 2012 Benghazi attacks, a claim immediately debunked by a panelist on the show.
On the September 4 edition of Special Report, host Bret Baier aired video of his interview with three CIA security personnel who responded to the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi. The interview will be featured during Fox News' special "13 Hours at Benghazi," which will air on September 5 and is based on a forthcoming book of the same name that the personnel played a role in writing. Introducing the interview, Baier asked the former security personnel about what he claimed to be "one of the most controversial questions arising from Benghazi: Was helped delayed?" Baier described the interview as a "dramatic new turn in what the Obama administration and its allies would like to dismiss as an old story."
The three CIA security personnel explained to Baier that the CIA's station chief in Benghazi told them to wait before responding to the attacks. One of the men told Baier "I assumed they were trying to coordinate us to link up with 17 February, which is the local militia."
But contrary to Baier's presentation of the story as new and "dramatic," New York Times reported in a September 4 article that the security personnel accounts made in the book "fits with the publicly known facts and chronology," explaining that U.S. officials have previously acknowledged that "the Central Intelligence Agency security team paused to try to enlist support from Libyan militia allies."
In fact, during a panel discussing Baier's interview later on the program, conservative Washington Post columnist Charles Lane explained that the delay was probably to ensure the safety of the remaining CIA security personnel and was, in fact, not controversial at all:
LANE: The person I want to hear from is Bob, the CIA guy who told them to wait. Because when we hear from Bob we'll hear why he told them to wait. What we heard from your interview was they assumed he was waiting for more support from the local militia. Which, by the way, might not be a bad reason to wait. In other words, you want to go - you don't want to rush in with just three guys into what was obviously a very, very dangerous situation. You'd want to wait to see if you could round up some more support. In other words, there's a difference between waiting and waiting for no good reason and, even worse, waiting because you were told 'we don't care what happens to the Ambassador.' I want to hear from Bob, I want to hear the CIA make him available and tell us exactly what was going on. What I'm not hearing in this is that anybody in Washington said, 'we don't care what happens to the Ambassador, write it off, stay away.'
Even panelist Steve Hayes pointed out that the House Intelligence Committee's Benghazi report "says that there was no stand down order." And Baier himself conceded that the Senate Intelligence Committee January 2014 review of the attacks "said that in fact it was working to get this February 17 militia to respond first."
The evidence that CIA operatives were not delayed by "orders from above" is overwhelming and has existed for quite some time -- but if Fox's upcoming Benghazi documentary is any indication, the network will continue its attempts to make a scandal out of the "stand down order" myth.
Fox News host Bret Baier raised the notion that a possible forthcoming executive order on immigration from President Obama may be government "shutdown bait."
In June, President Obama announced he was considering issuing an executive order that could allow millions of law-abiding undocumented immigrants to stay temporarily in the United States. While the specifics of the possible order are still unknown, the Washington Post reported this "could include temporary relief for law-abiding undocumented immigrants who are closely related to U.S. citizens or those who have lived in the country a certain number of years."
On the August 28 edition of Special Report with Bret Baier, host Bret Baier speculated on whether President Obama's forthcoming order was "shutdown bait," designed to encourage the Republicans into shutting down the government in retaliation:
In fact, GOP lawmakers have been floating the idea of using a budget showdown in response to an executive order on immigration. In recent days, Republican lawmakers like Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) and Rep. Steve King (IA) have talked to reporters about using the budget and government funding mechanisms to address any action Obama takes on immigration. In a statement released by The Des Moines Register, King said that an executive order on immigration "changes the dynamic of any continuing resolution":
"If the president wields his pen and commits that unconstitutional act to legalize millions, I think that becomes something that is nearly political nuclear ...," King said. "I think the public would be mobilized and galvanized and that changes the dynamic of any continuing resolution and how we might deal with that."King said if that happens, House-passed legislation on border security, including rolling back the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, order, "becomes a requirement" for a continuing resolution.
Baier's question also came a day after The Week's Marc Ambinder noted that Rubio had "hinted that this might happen," and advised Democrats to "[g]o big on immigration. Wait for the GOP counter-reaction. Quietly pray for the government to get shut down. Use it like a cattle prod to wake voters up just before the midterms."