Wow: Greta drops a bomb about White House trying “very hard” to get Fox not to report on Benghazi

In all seriousness, if you’re a reporter for any other outlet besides Fox, and you are seeing this, you should either feel obligated to prove her wrong by pointing to all your own investigative work on this story, or just hang your head in shame because you’re just a disgrace to your profession.

On Thursday, Greta Van Susteren wrote at her blog, “After Benghazi on 9/11/2012, the Obama administration tried very hard to discourage Fox News Channel from reporting on it. The effort was obstruction – pure and simple.”

“They tried to prevent the truth from coming out and the Administration tried just about everything to discourage Fox from investigating and reporting,” she continued. “All the American people wanted, and all I ever wanted, was just the facts – why did 4 Americans die? What happened?”

“The Obama Administration put out that phony video story — but who could not have been suspicious of the Administration after hearing that?” Van Susteren asked. “Frankly, if they had been candid on day 1, the Benghazi story would have been over in short order. It would not be to the point we are now: with a Senate Bi Partisan Intelligence Committee report with the very painful conclusion that the murders at Benghazi could have been prevented.”

Van Susteren gave examples of how the Administration tried to prevent Fox from telling Americans the truth:

In the early days after Benghazi, the State Department omitted only Fox News Channel from its conference call to all the media when it claimed to be answering questions about Benghazi for the media. Our friends in other media outlets were scandalized that Fox was not included and told us all about it. They were suspicious of State Department forgetting us/Fox and courageous to tip us off. The State Department claimed it was accident and not intentional.

And then shortly thereafter, there was the CIA briefing about Benghazi at the CIA for all the networks – except one: Fox News Channel. The CIA would not let Fox News Channel attend. […]

And there were many times in the months and years since September 2012 when Obama Administration officials would make comments to suggest that Fox was just doing the Benghazi reporting for political reasons. The Administration was doing what it could to deter and demean the Fox News Channel investigation. They did not want to give us the facts — so their strategy was to attempt to belittle and demean our reporting.

After taking a swipe at the New York Times for issuing an analysis that has since been completely debunked by a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report, Van Susteren wrote of attempts by a friend of hers within the Adminstration to get her to silence Fox’s Jennifer Griffin:

[M]y friend told me that my colleague Jennifer Griffin, who was aggressively reporting on Benghazi, was wrong and that, as a favor to me, my friend in the Administration was telling me so that I could tell Jennifer so that she did not ruin her career. My friend was telling me to tell Jennifer to stop her reporting. Ruin her career?

In 20 plus years, I have never received a call to try and shut down a colleague – not that I even could – this was a first.

Knowing Griffin to be one of the best investigative reporters in the business, Van Susteren demanded her friend offer proof that her colleague was wrong. None was forthcoming:

I got no proof. Zero. I smelled a rat. Favor to me? Hardly. My friend was trying to use me. I feel bad that a friend did that to me, tried to use me for a dirty reason. I knew then — and it is now confirmed by BIPARTISAN Senate Intelligence Committee — Jennifer was getting her facts right. I think it is really low for the Administration to stoop this low.

To be sure, the Administration should be ashamed of how it’s behaved since September 11, 2012. But it wouldn’t have been able to behave this way if other news organizations covered this story as aggressively as Fox News did.

Sadly, Obama and Company knew from the start that their accomplices in the media would parrot anything they said, and go along with their contention that this was a “phony scandal” ginned up by the President’s enemies which of course include Fox News.

Since a junior senator from Illinois first threw his hat into the presidential ring in February 2007, we’ve watched America’s media totally abdicate journalism for his benefit.

Benghazi is just another example.

With three more years left of this presidency, it likely won’t be the last.

facebook share

From the Web

Was RONALD REAGAN a better president than BARACK OBAMA? Click LIKE if you agree!

Screen Shot 2015-02-28 at 8.16.20 PM
  • Press Watchusa

    Chicago amateurs

    They can’t even do deceit correctly!

    They should all go to prison – skip impeachment!

  • GrayMatters

    So very proud of you Greta!!! You are rare… indeed…to your profession. Your commitment to Truth is commendable!

    • N. Le Roi

      Thank God for you Greta. Get Traficant back on….have him play checkers with Gutfeld and win,

  • dba_vagabond_trader

    So why doesn’t F0x take this administration to court for intimidating the press?

    • rockmom

      Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Better for Greta to shame them on her highly-rated TV show!

      • dba_vagabond_trader

        Unfortunately commies have no shame and it will be forgotten in a week. The courts are their favorite bludgeon, we should use them too.

        • Milhouse

          In what way could we use the courts? They haven’t done anything illegal. They don’t have to invite everyone to their press conferences. They don’t have to hold press conferences at all.

      • PollyWannaCrakka

        But its still just preaching to the choir…

    • Milhouse

      Really? On what grounds could Fox sue them? What did they do that’s illegal? You say intimidation?! In what way did they intimidate anyone? Did they threaten to beat anyone up?

      And what has “the press” got do do with anything? Do you imagine “the press” are some privileged people with a special legal status?! What planet do you live on? “The press” are just ordinary people with no more legal rights than anyone else, and it’s no more a crime to intimidate them than it is to intimidate anyone. But nobody in the administration intimidated anyone, so what case do you imagine Fox could bring?

      • nova13

        Milhouse…………………….keep drinking the Kool-Aid until they come for all the useful idiots.

        • Milhouse

          WTF are you talking about? Do you even know? Whatever you’re drinking, it sure ain’t Kool-Aid. If you think I’m wrong, then explain exactly what Fox could sue for. What the administration did to Fox that was in any way illegal. If you can’t do that, then shut the !@#$%^& up.

  • poljunkie

    Good on you Greta.

    • audieho

      Good on her would be to name the friend in the administration or else provide hard evidence.

  • Aubryn

    Well Greta, I would like to say kudos to you, but, what took you so long? To state the obvious only after it becomes indisputable is pretty safe isn’t it? What happened in Benghazi has been plain for some time. While the MSM fought tooth and nail to obfuscate, hide and deny, you at Fox knew and soft peddled. You appear to react to the accusations of bias from the left by maintaining a certain measurable distance to the right and no more, regardless of the truth. This measured distance is maintained still as the left lurches farther and farther into nothing more than ‘state sponsored media’ you are exactly the same distance away moving in the same direction. Your credibility should be measured by how close to the truth you are not how far to the right of left you are.

    • Willys

      Fox News broadcast any facts at hand, from day one, day after day. Regardless of the criticism from other news stations, web, and print.

      • Aubryn

        Pucky Wiilys. They are aware of so much more than they ever tell their viewers. That will become undeniable later this year. Watch and learn.

        • Solarus

          Can you give us an example of something they are aware of but will not tell their viewers?

          • disqus_g204mtHiRG

            S….. thinking we shouldn’t be holding our breath waiting………

  • jcfriday

    All one needs to do is look at who is at the head of this administration and what political hacks are around him constantly.Valerie Jarrett is perhaps one of the worst now that Rahm Emanuel is back in the most corrupt city in the nation politically wise. This is a sorry example of how far intl the gutter this corrupt administration has gone.

  • Christina Mccauley


  • MongooseBananaHat

    So Greta is such a peerless investigator that she makes other reporters a disgrace by comparison? Greta has been caught outright lying so many times she could joust with Pinnochio. Fox News and the funky bunch has proven themselves repeatedly to be a terrible source if you’re looking for actual, factual news reporting. They actually do a disservice to the conservative community by constantly spouting bold faced lies and propaganda when if they actually reported the facts, they could still support their political viewpoints. These lies are then regurgitated by their viewers who are easy pickings for anyone who can spend a minute or two, researching and citing factual sources. Instead, Fox is no better than MSNBC.
    If you want to talk about Benghazi, let’s talk about Benghazi…but it’s hard to take this seriously when the whole article is from the viewpoint of Fox News being the wounded, limping deer in the forest.

    • anna

      you’re an idiot and not correct

      • MongooseBananaHat

        Well, I’m not sure I can debate such an intellectual mastermind like yourself when your entire reply is, “you’re an idiot and not correct” but I’ll try. The fact is Fox which purports to be a staunch defender of conservatism constantly undermines conservative efforts by reporting blatantly false information. They have already been caught in numerous outright lies about both Benghazi and Obamacare. The funny thing is there is no need to report lies and blatantly false propaganda. Both Benghazi and Obamacare have been thoroughly botched and actual facts speak for themselves. I’m not arguing they weren’t! But you blithely attack anyone who dares speak out against Fox News for not being a credible news source. This is the same network whose network anchors called the “mysterious” donator behind the 9/11 mosque as being a terrorist mastermind when in fact, it was Rupert Murdoch’s good friend and actual co-owner of Fox News/News Corp

        • bittman

          So, do you admit that the New York Times serves as Obama’s Propaganda Squad or America’s own Version of Pravda–as evidenced by the Benghazi “special investigation report” published just a couple weeks ago which the House and the Senate reports clearly exposed as lies.

          • MongooseBananaHat

            I don’t read the NY Times but please point out for me (I seem to have forgotten) where I mentioned or cited the NY Times. I’m talking about a news network, not a newspaper. Fox News doesn’t hold their own selves to the standards of responsibility, accountability and credibility that they lambast everyone else for. If you think MSNBC is bad, Fox News is right on their level and you won’t find Fox in the business of publishing retractions, corrections or apologies. They undermine conservative politics by pushing out misleading and false information which people that don’t know any better mindlessly parrot making them fish in a barrel for anyone who can spend a minute actually researching something and citing factual sources. The problem is many people don’t seem to know the difference between facts and editorializing and every anchor on Fox News thinks they have their own personal talk show.
            Take Glenn Beck for example. He openly admitted in an interview to Barbara Walters, when he had his show on Fox that he didn’t fact check anything he said, he was just an entertainer and that he could give a “flying crap about the political process.”
            We sure as he’ll never heard those disclaimers on his show, did we? That’s why people like that, don’t champion conservatism, they hurt it.

          • bittman

            You cannot legitimately consider the other stations and newspapers more truthful than FOX news shows — How long did ABC, CBS, and NBC spend on Bridgegate compared with Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the IRS Scandals, and the lies told to pass Obamacare? The time they spent covering Bridgegate was about 17 to 1 times longer than they covered just the IRS Scandal alone and that routinely happens. How long did it take the NYT to cover the East Anglia hacker which exposed the fraud in Global Warming research? It happened in October-November; the NYT covered it in March the following year — and omitted key factors like the scientists failed to even follow the basic scientific method of conducting research that every student is taught in school. Our news media serves as the Old Russian Pravda — they lie, they omit key facts, they falsely slant the information, and they omit the political parties when it is a Democrat that “did the crime.”

          • effinayright

            Someone with an education should quietly take you aside and tell you that making strings of unsupported assertions, as you have done here, is not an “argument”. IOW you’re not making a case.

            Fox got something wrong, ERGO they can’t be trusted with anything? Fallacy of Overgeneralization. Or do the errors of MSNBC and CNN get a pass —For example CNN’s King said a Boston bombing suspect had been arrested, when none had been. MSNBC falsely edited a Zimmerman tape to make him sound racist. Do those not count?

            Glen Beck not fact-checking? Since when has he been passing himself off as a journalist? You do know the difference between a commentator (opinions) and journalists (reporters of fact), don’t you?

            Oh. You don’t.

            Got it.

          • MongooseBananaHat

            If by unsupported, you mean supported by actual facts then sure. “Unsupported.” It’s not an overgeneralization. It’s called a pattern. It has ceased to become a habit for Fox News and is their actual standard practice. In regards to MSNBC, if you actually read my comment instead of glossing over it, I don’t like them either. They’re just as bad. No, news organizations aren’t perfect but Fox not only constantly misreports they also make little to practically no effort at all, to make corrections or let their viewers know they’ve put out incorrect information. Of course, if they did, they wouldn’t have a lot of time left for their newscasts.
            Yes, there’s a difference between “commentators” and reporters. But Fox News reporters constantly editorialize as if they had their own talk show. As far as Glenn Beck and others with their own shows, that doesn’t mean they get a pass to lie constantly, especially when they’re adamantly asserting everything they say as god given facts and attacking people who question them.
            There’s also a difference between an error in fact, such as CNN misreporting the bombing suspect arrest and intentionally misreporting falsehoods that they know are false. They purport to support Christian conservative principles which make up a large portion of the viewing audience, right? Thou shall not bear false witness?
            Out of the numerous examples, I provided of Fox’s pattern of misreporting, look at the Akre case, where Fox News fought the FCC for the right to legally report lies and then look at how Fox & Friends painted this mysterious terrorist mastermind as the person behind funding the 9/11 mosque when they already knew full well it was their own Fox News/News Corps. co-owner. That is the difference between erroneous reporting and malicious misreporting.

          • effinayright

            You continue to bloviate w/o offering any evidence that Fox News makes more mistakes ,”lies” more han the other news channels and the MSM does, or editorializes news more than anyone else. That’s where you started, and you’ve just danced around the issue.

            Further, you completely misconstrue the Akre case.

            See this:


            Here’s the money grafs on the claim about “the right to lie”:

            More importantly, and more relevant to the examination of whether
            WTVT actually asserted a”right to lie”in its newscasts, is that there is
            nothing on record to show that this argument was ever advanced in

            In the initial response to the suit by Akre and Wilson, WTVT
            explicitly rejects that the edits they proposed and ultimately required
            for the report on BGH to air were “false, distorted, or slanted,” in
            multiple places. In fact, they allege that it was the story as prepared
            by Akre and Wilson that was biased and unbalanced.

            For example, in WTVT’s response to the initial Akre and Wilson
            complaint filed in court, WTVT claims that “…Defendant’s news managers
            realized the series could not be re-worked in time for the scheduled air
            date, due to the biased and undocumented nature of the pieces
            themselves…” and “…Defendant’s news managers had begun to suspect… that
            Plaintiffs were not interested in a fair, accurate, and balanced report
            on BGH.”

            In the “Affirmative Defenses” section of WTVT’s initial filing, the
            station alleges that “…[station managers’] insistence upon fair,
            accurate and balanced news reporting does not violate any law, rule, or
            regulation” and “…The First Amendment [and] Florida Constitution
            prohibit judicial review of Defendant’s news judgments and the exercise
            of editorial discretion…”

            And contrary to the claim in Gaddy’s story, it is simply not true that “Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story…” They did, in all of their filings.

            Whatever the truth of the dispute between the two reporters and WTVT,
            it seems clear that the station did not at the trial court level admit
            that it had attempted to distort the news story or assert the”right to
            lie”in its broadcasts. Instead, the station claimed its editorial
            decisions were based on an effort to air a fair and accurate story, and
            defended its editorial prerogatives under the First Amendment –
            editorial prerogatives that are indisputable, if the guarantee of a free
            press means anything.

            Further evidence that WTVT did not assert at the trial court level
            any “right to lie”or distort the news is that neither Akre’s response to
            WTVT’s initial appeal brief nor the petition she and Wilson filed with
            the FCC make any reference at all to such a claim. Surely, had a claim
            for a First Amendment “right to lie” in news broadcasts been made at the
            trial court level, some mention of it would have found its way into
            either of these two documents (Akre’s brief to the appellate court runs
            57 pages, and the FCC petition runs over 90 pages including appendices).

            A review of both the initial brief and the reply brief of WTVT for
            the appeal also reveals no mention whatsoever of a “right to lie”
            defense. Not surprisingly, the station’s brief does contain multiple
            references to the First Amendment supporting the contention that
            editorial decisions and disputes are beyond the purview of the
            Read the whole thing.

          • MongooseBananaHat

            Wow, nice copy/paste job there. I can think I can dispute that entire wall of text in a couple paragraphs.

            This is from the court documents on the Fox/Akre case:
            “We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news-which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy”-does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.”

            Now, just tell me why would Fox News need to defend themselves against “intentional falsification” if they weren’t intentionally falsifying anything? Hrmmm. (That’s the two paragraphs)

            After that, tell me if you have any problem with a bunch of chemicals and hormones being dumped into your food at their source, before they’re even further processed. If growth hormones are good for people (they are right?) they must be good for food too right?

            Now, I realize that growing food on a massive scale presents difficulties but personally I’d feel better if growers found some less chemically harsh ways to do it and if it wasn’t all controlled by one monopolized company who got a “free pass” from Supreme Court Justice Thomas who (shocker) actually worked for Monsanto.

            Whether or not, you’re for or against Monstanto’s monopoly and their right to dump tons of chemicals into our food supply, I would think you would at least concede that there are better and alternative ways to grow food not requiring massively harsh pesticides to include pesticides genetically engineered into the plants themselves.

            Now, back to Fox…it makes you wonder, Fox News, staunch defenders of conservatives, whose network news (not affiliates) have actually reported against pesticides, about the harm and threat of pesticides in our food and about the benefits of organic grown food…who have no fear of calling out the White House and our government…why then…are they afraid of Monsanto?

            Because…Fox News is not so much news as they are entertainment, and their reporting is largely propagandized and driven by money from people who are friends with Monsanto.

            And just to reiterate going back to my original point, why would Fox News need to defend themselves against “intentional falsification”, calling it into question if they weren’t intentionally falsifying anything? They wouldn’t.

            Now, you’re also saying, well other news organizations do it. Is that a conservative principle? Someone else did it, so even if it’s wrong it’s okay? Because if that is, I have been gravely misinformed.

          • effinayright

            You’re an idiot. Fox NEWS wasn’t even a party to the Akre case!!! You can look it up! That case involved a FL affiliate (WTVT) of the Fox Company, the TV network that brings you The Simpsons, NOT Bill O’Reilly.

            On top of that , the Akre case did NOT involve an assertion about a “right to lie”. Here’s the appellate court decision. Try reading it w/o tiring out your lips and over-straining your last working neuron:


            You will note that the decision has nothing to do with the merits of the story about Monsanto, so your riffing on that topic is utterly irrelevant.

            All the crap you’ve written, about why if Fox News (not a party in the case !!!) hadn’t actually *done* the things “they” (not a party in the case !!!) were accused of, would “they” (not a party in the case !!!) defend charges against “them” (not a party in the case !!!) in a friggin court of law, mark you as an utter buffoon.

            As for Fox News’ mistakes: you really ought to look at CNN’s,and especially MSNBC’s, before you call out Fox News. Remember, it was YOU and that other moron above who assert w/o evidence that Fox uniquely misreports the news.

            From your flaky, low-wattage (mis) understanding of things, I suspect you (and the moron above) are foot-soldiers, or maybe just a camp followers, in Barack’s Free $hit Army.

          • MongooseBananaHat

            It was Fox News that shutdown Akre’s report, because Monsanto contacted Roger Ailes directly to complain about it. You know Roger Ailes right? The President of Fox News Channel? So tell me again, how Fox News was not involved in this case.
            Again, this is directly from the court case:
            “We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news-which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy”-does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102.”
            They specifically argued that they had broken no law, because the FCC’s “intentional falsification” clause was a policy not an actual regulation/law. If they had not intentionally falsified anything, they wouldn’t have had to address that clause at all, would they?
            I never said, that “Fox uniquely misreports the news.”
            Yet another strawman argument.
            In fact, I have stated numerous times that MSNBC is just as bad. You can debate whether they’re just as/lesser/worse than Fox News but again, I have said multiple times I don’t like MSNBC either.
            And you have gone right back to juvenile name calling, profanity and multiple explanation points.
            I have calmly stated my case. I didn’t feel the need to call you or anyone else an idiot or use profanity.
            Hmmmmm. Why do you need to? People often use personal attacks as cover for lack of logical discussion.
            Also, sorry to disappoint you but nope, I didn’t vote for Obama. In fact, who even said anything about “Obama!” …oh…that’s right. You did.
            Is Fox News the epitomy of evil and bad journalism? No, not at all. But they are heavily biased and they can match MSNBC tit for tat when it comes to propaganda. I actually read Fox News, for perspective. I read MSNBC too. I don’t like either of them, but I read them both. It’s actually very difficult to get news from purely factual, non-opinionated sources these days so instead, I aggregate my news from multiple sources and when I suspect bias, I fact check them myself.

          • effinayright

            * If Akre could have sued Fox News, she would have. She had no “cause of action”, because she wasn’t employed by the Fox News Channel, but with the local Fox Co. affiliate.

            * Neither Fox News, nor the local Fox TV affiliate, “admitted” they had intentionally falsified anything. They simply argued that EVEN IF the plaintiff’s position were true (a legal technique called “arguing in the alternative”), that the FCC regulation did not rise to the level of a law that would trigger the Florida Whistleblower statute. AND they argued that any attempted state scrutiny of journalistic output would violate the First Amendment, so the Whistleblower statute could not apply to news or opinion pieces. (that’s paraphrasing, but essentially that’s what the case boiled down to, as shown in the snippet I pointed you to —the one you jeered at as “cut-and-paste”).

            So, OK, you claim to fact-check news items yourself. But in this case you either didn’t bother, or you didn’t understand the legal issues.

            As for BGH itself, here’s what the American Cancer Society has to say about the topic:


            Will you argue that they and the FDA are all in bed with Monsanto? Does your utterly gratuitous smear of Clarence Thomas —who had nothing to do with the actual Akre case—indicate that you think he “got to” the ACS, the FDA and the circuit/appellate courts hearing the Akre case?

          • MongooseBananaHat

            Monsanto complained to Ailes, the President of Fox News directly and he had the reports shut down himself. You can tap dance all you want but that says everything right there. The court documents speak for themselves. But you can debate if you like. If you don’t think there’s anything wrong with genetically engineered pesticides in your food well it’s all good then, I guess. As far as Justice Thomas it seems like it could be a possibility that he abused his position as a Supreme Court justice and former employee of Monsanto to allow Monsanto an unfair monopoly.
            I never said anything about the FDA or ACA though so it’s funny how you’re making up arguments I never made about them. But can the FDA do no wrong? I seem to remember having read NUMEROUS articles critical of the FDA, pointing out failings of the FDA and calling into question many practices of the FDA on…guess which news site…Fox News, which is who you’ve been arguing for. Surely, Fox News can’t be wrong? If so, then the FDA is fallible.
            Now you jumped all over Akre but I see you don’t have much to say about my other points including one of my favorites, Fox & Friends claiming the donator behind the 911 mosque was some shadowy terrorist mastermind when it fact it was their own Fox News/ News Corp co-owner, which they knew full well but full disclosure and actual facts don’t really support bigoted fear-mongering does it? And again, that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

          • effinayright

            Monsanto complained to Ailes, the President of Fox News directly and he had the reports shut down himself. You can tap dance all you want but that says everything right there.

            >>>>Whaaaa…? Everything? That says that the original piece was actually fair? What kind of argument is that? And did you not know that the TV station later broadcast the piece with Monsanto’s countervailing arguments —or in your disturbed world, do the investigative reporters always get it right?


            The court documents speak for themselves.

            >>>Yes, they do, and the plaintiffs LOST, big time.

            If you don’t think there’s anything wrong with genetically engineered pesticides in your food well it’s all good then,

            >>>LOLZ! BGH isn’t a pesticide, it’s a hormone. And, of course, you’ve tried to sneak past the point that the ACS and FDA don’t think them to be a health risk. You really don’t know what making a case means, but here’s another stab: I cite major organizations that deny your half-witted claims, and you cite….squat. Is that your argument? Is the FDA infallible? No, but until YOU offer any actual EVIDENCE for your bed-wetting, you have no case!!!

            Oh and btw: genetically engineered strains of grain have been responsible for hundreds of millions of people in Asia being able to increase their rice crop yields.

            Look up Norman Borlaug, then report back to me. (and if you think cross-breeding isn’t genetic modification, it would not surprise me at all!)

            >>>Fox and 911 mosque? That is utterly irrelevant to this discussion, and I’m not going to swerve to address your irrelevancy!

            >>>As for Akre being MY own point of contention — it was YOU who invoked Akre to offer a litany of horribles against Fox.

            Face it: deep down, you’re shallow and uninformed. You know nothing about legal proceedings, their holdings, their modes of argument. You know even less about modern plant breeding.

            IOW you are a dumbass.

            Ordinarily that wouldn’t be a demerit, because lay people don’t have any background on those topics.

            But in your case, you misconstrue defendants, causes of actions,, arguments, and holdings.

            ON top of that, you merely assume what you need to prove, namely that BGH is harmful to public health. But the ACS and FDA disagree with you. If you’ve got better evidence, present it.

            Or else, how about opening a 16-oz can of STFU.

          • MongooseBananaHat

            1. The claim about Monsanto contacting Roger Ailes is not “purest of hearsay.” It is public record actually because Monsanto’s lawyer faxed the complaint from Monsanto to Roger Ailes personally and there is no dispute from Fox News, Monsanto or Roger Ailes about that fact. Sorry.
            2. Go back and read. I never said BGH is a pesticide. I said, Monsanto uses genetically engineered pesticides, which they do. Let’s see that addresses about 2 or 3 paragraphs of your rambling right there.
            3. You’re fixated on one single thing, the Akre case, because apparently it’s the only thing you think you can actually argue. But my point was about Fox News’ pattern of misinformation so yeah, I would say the fact that Fox & Friends claimed the benefactor behind the “9/11 mosque” was a terrorist mastermind and failed to disclose the fact that they knew, it was Fox News/News Corps’ own co-owner, is relevant.
            4. And again you’re right back to name calling and profanities. I wonder why you feel the need to use them?
            5. Again, I wasn’t talking about BGH. I was pointing out the fact, that Monsanto has genetically engineered pesticides right into their plants. I’m not talking about pesticides being sprayed on plants…The plants themselves produce pesticides internally. They’re called PIPs. Maybe you should do some research.
            So anyway, that was almost your entire rant, was to call me a “dumbass” for pointing out that Monsanto uses genetically engineered pesticides in their plants, not on them…IN them. I never said BGH was a pesticide. Go back and read my comments to your heart’s content.

        • Willys

          At least Fox offers an outlet for the conservative voice that won’t be heard on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, or CNN.

          It’s the opportunity for balance

    • wp4934

      Your user id explains a lot!!
      Sorry t be so impertinent, but I did not see a single faction your argument!!

      • MongooseBananaHat

        First you start with sophomoric name calling and then you continue with ever so “subtle” ad hominem attacks. (You’ll have to google that). You still completely miss the point and utterly fail to understand that I’m not defending the government’s response to Benghazi. The point being, when it comes to misleading, biased propaganda churning Fox News is just as bad as

        • TexCassidy

          Anna’s comment was quite pithy and a correct characterization of your post. You can wax hysterical about Fox News all you want but many of us know Greta to be one of the more honest journalists in the industry.

          You come across as a ranting lunatic. If you’re not a lunatic, prove it with a coherent argument with supporting facts.

          • MongooseBananaHat

            Who’s being “hysterical” and a “ranting lunatic”? Oh

            gosh, you want facts? Wherever will I find proof that

            Fox News lies on a constant basis?

            1. Akre vs. Fox News, Fox News corporate shuts down

            an affiliate’s report critical of Monsanto’s use of growth

            hormones (you like growth hormones in your food

            right?), is sued and argues to the FCC they have a

            right to lie about it. If Fox doesn’t lie in their reports,

            why did appeal/countersue for the right to lie…in their

            reports? Odd. Hrmmm?
            2. Fox News & Friends claimed the “mysterious”

            donator behind the 9/11 “terror” mosque was a

            terrorist mastermind. What they didn’t bother to

            mention was that terrorist was Fox News/News Corp’s

            co-owner and good friend of Rupert Murdoch, Prince

            Al-Waleed bin Talal, which they knew.
            3. Fox News’ Martha MacCallum blasted Biden for

            saying, “the fundamentals of the economy are strong”

            What they didn’t bother to mention was that Biden was

            actually quoting a quote by Sen. John McCain. There

            are literally too many examples of Fox News

            misquoting, using misleading quotes and out of

            context quotes for one comment.
            4. Fox News’ E.D. Hill called a fist bump shared by

            Barack Obama and his wife Michelle a “terrorist fist

            jab.” Again, this is just one of too many to cite cases,

            where Fox News resorts to ad hominem attacks that

            make no sense whatsoever.
            5. Fox News claimed in 2009 that Obama’s proposed

            3.6 trillion budget was 4 times bigger than Bush’s

            largest budget plan when in fact, in 2007 Bush

            proposed a 2.9 trillion budget. I’ll let you see if you can

            figure out the math on that one.
            6. In 2009, Fox heavily touted a Tea Party rally and

            claimed other “liberal” news organizations such as

            CNN and MSNBC were not reporting this story at all.

            Fox News…bringing you exclusive Tea Party coverage

            when other networks won’t! …except…CNN and

            MSNBC actually had already covering it. CNN ran 14

            reports on the rally and MSNBC ran 4 reports on it.

            So…Fox News seems off on their math again. 18

            reports = zero coverage?
            7. Bill O’Reilly is a fun guy too. To be honest, I actually

            like O’Reilly but he steps in it quite often himself as well

            making wild claims and not bothering to check facts

            first. O’Reilly claimed in 2010 that no one on Fox

            News ever made the claim people would go to jail if

            you don’t buy health insurance. If by no one on Fox

            News…you mean Sean Hannity, Andrew Napolitano

            guest hosting the Glenn Beck show and Glenn Beck

            himself on his show, before it got axed by Fox.
            8. I don’t honestly think I even need to mention Glenn

            Beck and his hilarious stream of lies when he was on

            Fox. In an interview, with Barbara Walters while Beck

            was still on Fox he said we was merely an

            “entertainer”, “couldn’t give a flying crap about the

            political process” and adamantly stated he did not fact

            check his reports. Strange, we never heard those

            disclaimers on the Glenn Beck show, while he was

            wiping tears from his eyes with an American flag

            9. Van Susteren interviewed the President of an anti-

            Obamacare organization called Generation

            Opportunity, bolstering his claims that he was

            completely independently funded and had no large

            donors. If by independent and no large donors, you

            don’t count the fact that Gen. Opp. is funded by the

            Koch Brothers…you know, who are among the top

            richest people in the world.
            Susteren also had to back down on attacks made

            against Obamacare in regards to a Cleveland Clinic

            medical center in Sep. 2013, because they completed

            misreported on it.
            Susteren has her own’s lion share of stepping in

            misquotes, out of context and misleading reporting as


            These are just a few examples. I’d need more than a

            page if you wanted more…try hundreds of pages for

            starters. If you think MSNBC is bad (they are) Fox

            News is no better. They constantly make false claims,

            make up numbers, misquote and make misleading

            reports. Fox News is not news. As many of their own

            reporters have themselves said, it’s “entertainment.”

            I have already made numerous statements, using facts

            and logic and have received personal attacks, ad

            hominem and name calling in return. If you want to to

            pat yourselves on the back and say, “Well, you’re an

            idiot and you’re wrong.” (One of you did) knock

            yourself out but I wouldn’t use that in any political

            debate or discussion where you expect to be taken

            seriously. A high school kid in debate 101 would have

            a field day with that.

          • TexCassidy

            Your evidence is pathetic. There aren’t facts and sound logic in your post. There is bad logic. Meaning false premises and unwarranted conclusions. There are circumstances and your own poor inferences that litter sentences.

            I don’t know that you can do better than distortions, taking words and information out of context.

            Every one of the major networks can be characterized as liars under your standards.

          • MongooseBananaHat

            So…facts and logic that don’t support your argument aren’t facts and pointing out numerous examples of Fox News misreporting, intentionally and knowingly lying and taking information out of context is…according to you, “taking information out of context.” but on the outside chance that all the facts I pointed out are true (they are) then it’s still okay because everyone else does it except that with the exception of MSNBC no one else does it with the frequency that Fox News does and they might actually be slightly ahead of MSNBC.

        • Ricard

          Sophomoric name caller complains about “sophomoric name calling”…nice…

          • MongooseBananaHat

            Exactly, where did I call anyone names?

  • GrayRider

    Appalling absolutely appalling. There are no words to effectively describe how despicable and low Obama and his acolytes are.

  • atlas007

    Pass this along to all your friends through email or Facebook. Spread this news about the most non transparent administration and President in the history of our country.

  • bittman

    It is long past time for a Special Prosecutor for both the Benghazi Scandal and the IRS Scandal and the appointment cannot be someone so clearly Left leaning as Podesta who is heading the NSA team or the Obama high dollar donor named by Obama to investigate the IRS Scandal.

  • Scottie G

    Obama king of lies!

    • effinayright

      King of Lies, and Lord of the Flies.

  • Blacque Jacques Shellacque

    Ms Susteren, do let the American public know if the IRS contacts you out of the blue…

  • thorgodofthenorth

    To protest this dangerous and anti-American act by the MSM people should cancel their TV contracts with Comcast and any other organization that uses your viewing as a financial instrument of this hard core propaganda.

  • John Scotus

    “Wow”? This should be expected by anyone who has been paying close attention. The only thing noteworthy is that someone at Fox provided confirmation that it was indeed happening.

  • Sally Smith

    .Obama supporters will go hysterical over this well sourced list of 519 examples of his lying, lawbreaking, corruption, cronyism, etc.

  • ThewlynOh

    This is just CONFIRMATION of the attitude and culture of Washington…nothing new here with this administration…

    • xbox361

      NY and DC are the enemy of America.
      hope they have a Star Wars defense against Norks and Iran?!

  • xbox361

    but what did the undersecretary of bridges say in regarding to the memo that may have said that something should be done to the princes in the tower?
    what depression? what surveillance state? huh?

  • MilitaryVeteran

    Prisons should be full of these lying so-called “journalists.” Their slander and lies, on a daily basis, should be actionable in court. While they hide behind the 1st Amendment – they are destroyig the Republic. Just how bad could it get if we didn’t have Fox News? The main networks have no standards and everything is to promote Marxism and the homosexual agenda. While these same networks loose ad revenue along with audience – they make up for it in Democrat advertising revenues.

  • Lee Reynolds

    Worst of all, the 47% will actively support this as long as they continue to get “free stuff” from the state.


      AKA the Free Shit Army………………………….

  • MrNewCastrati

    Next, they went to the Hollywood Sitcom producers asking that every mention of Fox News be followed by extended canned laughter. Anyone watch “Til Death” lately?

    • teapartydoc

      I can’t remember the last time I watched a TV show that wasn’t a rerun over forty years old.

      • teapartydoc

        The Rifleman never says anything bad about Fox.

  • savannah1234567890

    bammie is too lazy and too stupid to lead. Fore!

  • pursang

    I have just found this site, it is great.

    When I was young, the term “All The President’s Men” referred to administration employees that worked to keep the truth from the press.

    Sadly, today the term “All The President’s Men” refers to the TV personalities, reporters, editors and publishers in the Main Stream Media who work to keep the truth from the people.

    Thank God for Fox and the conservative blogs.

  • dogwonder

    Shades of 1930s Germany, the rise of Hitler and his oppressive regime. Obama has more in common with communist run nations than a Democratic Republic. I look forward to the day he is held legally accountable for his abusive vicious regime.

  • amr

    Since Congress under a SCOTUS decision has no standing in court to sue the
    President for his perceived unconstitutional actions, only impeachment and
    conviction is the legal cure for this want-a-be dictator. And we all know how that
    would end as it did with Clinton.

    President Obama has committed more crimes, abuses of the Constitution and
    cover ups than President Nixon ever contemplated. While Nixon was corrupt in
    his use of power, Obama is corrupt politically, civilly and criminally. If he
    was a Republican he would have been run out of office during his last term.

    Also remember this, senior Republicans pushed Nixon to release the tapes as
    ordered by the SCOTUS and when the tapes exposed his actions, the same
    leadership pushed him out of office for the good of the country. Where are the
    Democratic leaders like Senate Majority Leader Reid with this President; aiding
    and abetting, that’s where.

  • johnt

    What would you expect from a criminal class of political barbarians? Leave Americans to die, which makes them at least complicit in their murders, then lie and cover up with the assistance of their slut media. And now Obama is claiming that he’s the victim of racism, after five years !
    Odd, but wasn’t it Obama who spent 20 years in a screaming, black racist church? And lied about it.

  • CaptDMO

    “With three more years left of this presidency, it likely won’t be the last.”
    But only if every “appointed” department head, and other supernumerary, is eliminated, or replaced, as absolutely soon as is practical.

  • barbaro70

    Yes, someone of the stature of Greta, Greta herself, finally tells us WHAT WE ALL KNEW: that Barack Hussein Obama is a skunk, a dirty, rotten, desperate SKUNK! And that his dirty tricks have been learned well by his flunkies, his lackeys, his thugs. Do you think that comment is racist? You should, because I am a racist, a bigot, a hater: I HATE PEOPLE OF THE PHUKHED RACE, and BO is the prime exponent of the phukhed race, along with Moochelle Obama, Valery Jarrett, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden–you know who the phukheds are.

  • Twoiron

    We have three more years of this cr4p.

    Cheer up, folks. It’s only going to get worse.

  • Jimholton

    Geez Greta – didn’t you hear, this is just a phony scandal …………………. Not Even A Smidgen.