Did FOXNews Offer to Run Petraeus' Presidential Campaign?

Why isn't this a major scandal like the sex scandal we've heard plenty about:

Roger Ailes E-mail: "Maybe God is a Republican"

Source:

Watching Fox News can give sentient viewers the impression that the network is run by that nutjob uncle of yours who keeps forwarding chain emails about Obama's time in a madrassa. And it is.

Here are a few emails Fox News chief Roger Ailes forwarded to his underlings, demanding that they turn them into TV news.

New York's Gabriel Sherman reported last year that, even though he travels in New York's rarefied social circles and dines at Le Cirque, Ailes isn't a cynical peddler of right-wing ghost stories. In 2008, Ailes told Obama adviser David Axelrod that Obama intended to create a national police force to do his bidding. "That exchange was the moment [Axelrod] realized Ailes truly believed what he was broadcasting," Sherman wrote.

Keith Ablow, Fox News Psychiatrist: Newt Gingrich's Infidelity Might Make Him A Better President

More twisted propaganda from the FOXNews gang:

A controversial psychiatrist who works for Fox News has written an attention-getting column about Newt Gingrich. The column's conclusion? That Gingrich's infidelity might make him a better president.

Keith Ablow last attracted notice back in September, when he condemned ABC for letting Chaz Bono appear on "Dancing With The Stars" because he was a transgender man who, in Ablow's mind, might make children reconsider their own gender if they saw him. Ablow is also well-known for authoring a book with Glenn Beck.

Full article

Video: Newt Gingrich Attacks FOXNews for not being 'Fair and Balanced'

Gingrich used the anti-press line repeatedly. And it's worked for him. But he's taking it too far by attacking pro-Republican FOXNews, whom he worked for. This demonstrates how arrogant and self-centered Gingrich is:

News Corp. Admitted Phone Hacking Cover-Up, Hacking Victims Say

So why isn't Murdoch being prosecuted:

The British newspaper arm of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp has acknowledged to victims that executives covered up the scale of illegal activity by destroying evidence and lying to investigators, victims' lawyers said on Thursday.

In a statement that could further damage the company's reputation, lawyers for victims who have reached settlements said the agreements were based on News Group Newspapers acknowledging senior executives tried to hide evidence.

"News Group has agreed to compensation being assessed on the basis that senior employees and directors of NGN knew about the wrongdoing and sought to conceal it by deliberately deceiving investigators and destroying evidence," the statement said.

The lawyers issued the statement on Thursday as they prepared to tell a judge in a London court that many of the most high-profile victims - who include sports stars, actors and politicians - were ready to settle their claims.

The court was told that 19 of the first 26 cases have entered into formal settlement agreements.

Full article

Fox apologizes to Jews for Facebook poll on Jesus

FOX is fond of excoriating Democrats, the left for attacking Christianity and Israel. Here we have something which is as bad as anything they have criticized:

Fox Latin America has apologized for a poll on whether Jews killed Jesus Christ that one of its staffers put on a Facebook page promoting the National Geographic Channel's Christmas special.

The poll asked readers who they think is responsible for the death of Christ: Pontius Pilate, The Jewish People or the High Priests.

The Simon Weisenthal Center in Buenos Aires calls it a defamatory reference to Vatican propaganda that "resulted in the persecution and murder of Jews for two millennia."

The Jewish group says it's outraged that Fox would perpetuate an idea that the Vatican annulled back in 1965.

Full article

Palin Interviewed by FOX's Van Susteren: Transcript (11-10-08)

Sarah Palin was interviewed by FOXNews' Greta Van Susteren ('On The Record'). Read the complete transcript.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Let me clarify some loose ends here. The clothes -- what is the story on the clothes?

PALIN: The clothes. When I arrived at the convention, there were clothes waiting for me and clothes being ordered for me and for the family, for eight of us. And ever since then, those clothes, knowing that they didn't belong to me, many of them had been returned, many of them were put in the belly of the airplane, and some of them were returned home with me. We boxed them all up, sent them back to the rightful owners, the Republican National Committee. And that's the story on the clothes.

VAN SUSTEREN: Did you order the clothes?

PALIN: Did not order the clothes. Did not ask for the clothes. I would have been happy to have worn my own clothes from day one. But you know, that turned into kind of an odd issue, an odd campaign issue as things were wrapping up there, as to who ordered what and who demanded what.

But you know, I was happy to get to come home to my own closet and put my own clothes on again, which we had done, of course, through most of the campaign also. But the convention clothes were belonging to the RNC.

VAN SUSTEREN: Do you know whose idea that was or how that even evolved?

PALIN: Haven't really heard how all that evolved and hadn't really pursued it until we started getting criticized for supposedly asking for all these clothes, my family and me. And still don't have all of the answers. But it just, at this point, especially seems so irrelevant, unless the criticism continues in regards to my family or me demanding anything.

But it just seems like such an irrelevant issue when you consider what's going on in the world today and how a new administration is being ushered in and people being concerned about the direction of the nation and policies that will be adopted, and also at the same time being excited about this historic moment in our nation's history. Clothes just seem irrelevant.

VAN SUSTEREN: You know, I agree with you they're irrelevant. It's just that the number was so horrific. I mean, $150,000 was a giant number. And it seemed, you know, that all of a sudden, you got hammered with it. And I was trying to figure out, you know, it is fair, is it unfair, or you know, why is it that this became an issue? And I don't mean to harp on it, but why did this become an issue?

PALIN: Well, that is a good question. Again, arriving at the convention, being told that along with staging and lighting and everything else was wardrobe for my family and me to wear during the convention, and you know, just kind of going with the flow. OK, sounds -- that sounds fine. If that's the way that they do this, that's good, wearing the clothes during that time.

There's no way it could have been $150,000 worth of clothes, though, not unless every jacket and pair of shoes were $10,000, $20,000. I don't see how it added up.

But it was for eight people, not just for myself. And my understanding is right off the bat, about a third of the clothes had been returned because they just weren't going to work. Another third of the clothes that we were wearing all got returned to the RNC. And another third of the clothes -- we never did see them. Evidently, they were in the belly of the plane, and those got sent back also.

Obama O'Reilly Factor Interview Transcript (part 1,2 & 3)

Barack Obama appeared on FOX News and was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. Read the part 1 transcript. (see video pt.1) (pt.2 video) (pt. 2 transcript) (pt. 3 transcript)

MR. O'REILLY: Okay. Let's start with national security. Do you believe we're in the middle of a war on terror?

SEN. OBAMA: Absolutely.

MR. O'REILLY: Who is the enemy?

SEN. OBAMA: Al Qaeda, the Taliban, a whole host of networks that are bent on attacking America, who have a distorted ideology, who have perverted the faith of Islam. So we have to go after them.

MR. O'REILLY: Is Iran part of that component?

SEN. OBAMA: Iran is a major threat. Now, I don't think that there is the same -- they are not part of the same network. You know, you got Shi'a and you got Sunni. We gotta have the ability to distinguish between these groups because, for example, the war in Iraq is a good example where I believe the administration lumped together Saddam Hussein, a terrible guy, with al Qaeda which had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.

MR. O'REILLY: All right. We'll get to that in a minute.

SEN. OBAMA: And as a consequence, we ended up, I think, misdirecting our resources. So they're all part of various terrorist networks that we have to shut down and we have to destroy. But they may not all be part and parcel of the same ideology.

MR. O'REILLY: But I still don't understand -- and I'm asking this as an American as well as a journalist -- how threatening you feel Iran is. See, look, if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, okay, to me, they're going to give it to Hezbollah if they can develop the technology. Why not? And so we don't have anything to do with it. So therefore, the next president of the United States is going to have to make a decision about Iran, whether to stop them militarily. Because I don't believe -- if diplomacy works, fine. But you've got to have a plan b. And a lot of people are saying, look, Barack Obama's not going to attack Iran.

SEN. OBAMA: Here's where you and I agree. It is unacceptable for Iran to possess a nuclear weapon. It would be a game changer, and I've said that repeatedly. I've also said I would never take a military option off the table.

MR. O'REILLY: But would you prepare for one?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, listen --

MR. O'REILLY: Answer the question, Senator. Anybody can say options. Would you prepare for it?

SEN. OBAMA: Look, it is not appropriate for somebody, who is one of two people who could be the president of the United States, to start tipping their hand in terms of what their plans might be with respect to Iran. It's sufficient to say I would not take the military option off the table and that I will never hesitate to use our military force in order to protect the homeland and United States interests.

But where I disagree with you is the notion that we've exhausted every other resource. Because the fact of the matter is is that for six, seven years during this administration, we weren't working as closely as we needed to with the Europeans to create --

MR. O'REILLY: Diplomacy might work. You might be able to strangle them economically.

SEN. OBAMA: Sanctions, maybe.

MR. O'REILLY: Maybe. But that's just all hypothetical.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, everything is hypothetical. But the question is, are we trying to do what we need to do to ratchet up the pressure on them to change their --